OT: Hurricanes Lounge XLV: Y2K Twenty-Four Years Later

[Blueline Bomber]

And with all due respect what has that gotten them?

A 2nd term of Trump with control of the house and senate, this time knowing its going to be supercharged with a hyper-conservative agenda that they put in writing, and a conservative super-majority in the Supreme Court probably for the rest of our lifetime.

And to be clear, the people who want to silence women and minorities are by no means the majority here, but by focusing on policies that make straight white men consistently feel like they're being told they are the problem with everything in this country, you're going to inevitably have them aligned with the Tates and Fuentes out there because, again, they will hit on enough talking points to make that much more broad segment feel heard.

The policy they focused on was abortion rights, a topic that affects men almost as much as women. It's not portrayed as such, because most people have the critical thinking skills of field mice. And ultimately, that's what this all comes down to. It's not policy, it's not gender or identity politics, it's ignorance.

People voted on vibes, not policy. That's why you're getting so many people that are JUST now figuring out what Trump's tariffs mean. That's why, in a study, when presented with a list of policies completely blind, no names attached, people on both sides of the political spectrum and undecided voters picked Harris' over Trump's the majority of the time.

Again, I don't disagree that the Democrats need to do a better job of getting their messages across. Clearly, what they've been doing isn't working (and frankly, losing ground on "always blue" states should be a MAJOR wake up call).

But ultimately, they simply need a more charismatic candidate that can explain their messages in a way that the least educated American can understand. Tim Walz was GREAT at that. He came out swinging, used football analogies, car talk, and wasn't afraid to "go low" to emphasize his point. Then like a week later, he was completely neutered by the campaign advisors. Because they completely missed WHO Walz was really talking to

 

[Blueline Bomber]

Anyway, I think we're at like 5 pages of politics, which is gotta be a record on here. But I'm exhausted by the entire prospect at this point and it's not going to change any minds on here, so I'm just going to do my best to stop responding here.

 

[Unsustainable]

Oh don't get me wrong, the left have a lot to answer for after this election. But if "women are property" is the message that IS resonating with them, that's a problem for the country, politics aside.

That is a small outlier that needs to be ousted. No room for that. On the flip side, the left didn't give any confidence to young males.

Look, I know you're a big RFKJR supporter, so I'm not going to go too hard on the guy, but all I'll say is that he's pushing forth some messages that will not work out as planned. Just scientifically, it's not happening.

I know that big pharma went into panic mode with knowing that RFKjr is now over HHS.

 

[Unsustainable]

Anyway, I think we're at like 5 pages of politics, which is gotta be a record on here. But I'm exhausted by the entire prospect at this point and it's not going to change any minds on here, so I'm just going to do my best to stop responding here.

If you're interested in where I am in the political part of things, Dave Smith is who align with the most. He has a pod cast called Part of the Problem. I think he's the best voice for how my mind works.

 

[Derailed75]

I think you guys are missing some huge reasons why the Dems lost and blaming voters ignorance, is pretty on par with the media as they are also blaming tons of stuff but ignoring some important stuff.

Trust of the Democratic party is fragile right now. Between what the DNC did to Sanders in 2016 and intentionally hiding Bidens metal state from the public until their donors forced them to remove him from running is a huge issue for a lot of people not beholden to either party

The fact that they called large amounts of the voting base "trash" if they weren't planning on voting for them was another.

Obama calling black men misogynistic if they didn't vote for Kamala was a big mistake.

Finally Kamala was horrible is almost every interview. For example when Anderson Cooper question her platform and how policies she intended to put in place differed from how her current administration did things she rambled on for about 5 minutes and said absolutely nothing.

Paraphrasing her "Well Anderson there's more to do. It needs to be done but wasn't so we are going to do it because it hasn't been done and needs to"

It wasn't just a charisma thing, she was an awful candidate and very few people outside of hard-core Dems wanted her to be president. I think that was pretty evident by how the public voted.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Oh I think the Democratic party absolutely lost the plot when it came to caring at all about men, especially straight white men and I do fully believe that its the leading cause for them to continually get their asses kicked in elections. Take this for example:



And read that message. A patting of the liberals on the back for helping to empower women to be more dominant in the workforce. But look at those charts. Yes, there have been a lot of strides to help out women, but look at that chart for people with a degree and look at how it cratered for men starting around 1980 and only started correcting itself around 2010. Those policies essentially created a generation of men who legitimately feel left behind because they just never got the same help in their lifetime that was afforded to women. And now that generation is out in the workforce competing for jobs in a market where the US government is pushing policies that financially rewards companies for hiring women and people of color. And as I've said before, this job market is brutal right now.

The Dems have to stop playing identity politics. Stop basing your entire political agenda around pushing social issues based on gender or race. The only thing that agenda has done is rile up and give a platform to some of the absolute worst people out there, because they make the controlling majority feel heard.

Upthread I mentioned the ticking time bomb that nobody’s addressing in the future of the public sector.

Another economic time bomb that’s being almost willfully ignored on the left: young men are falling farther and farther behind in educational performance and attainment. I do NOT mean they are equalizing with women. Women passed them in practically every meaningful metric a generation ago. Boys are just failing en masse. Close to nothing is being done to address this, or even understand it.

This is deeply not OK. We can talk about the glass ceiling and wage equality and all the rest of it, but those issues aren’t solved by reversing educational attainment for boys. That’s economic suicide. Our economy is structured around the assumption of two-income households. It’s not like we’re going to gender-reverse and suddenly see men becoming stay at home husbands — what we’re going to see is increasing numbers of men failing to compete economically. Today’s computer programmer is tomorrow’s burger flipper.

This is all happening on top of a bunch of other unsettling trends for men in the workforce. Some of the numbers are striking. Unemployment among non-disabled, prime-aged men is higher now than it was during the Great Depression. College-educated men today are more likely to be unemployed than high school dropouts were in 1965. The rate of labor force participation among black men in 1965 was higher than the same rate among white men in 2015. A lot of the men who have fallen out of the workforce are the dreaded “parents’ basement dwelling incel” whose failure is chalked up to being an inherent loser. Fifty years ago he would just be a single working guy in an apartment. The generational implications of that negative shift are profound.

These trends are covered up by our tendency to look at the bottom line (“unemployment”, GDP) and by the rise of women, minorities, and immigrant labor in the workforce. The left celebrates women, minorities, and immigrants (and rightfully as equality is important) but they completely ignore the educational and economic reversals that are occurring in that other wedge of the demographic pie.

And it’s not like people haven’t been screaming at the left to wake up about these issues. We were having this same conversation in 2016. But Dems tend to reflexively view the concern for white people or for men as reactionary conservatism (or worse). The summer of 2020 exacerbated that dynamic by mainstreaming the idea that “safe places” involved white men sitting in a corner and shutting up so that others could have a platform. And so Dems keep falling farther behind with groups that used to be unshakably blue, like union workers and young men and Latinos who actually are seeing the right wing as empowering.

If this election didn’t lay out the bare truth to Dem leadership, I don’t know what else could. They're not going to be able to “coalition” their way out of these issues. They need to be able to be authentically liberal while also authentically giving a damn about the future of the entire population, not just target demographics.

 

[Svechhammer]

And it’s not like people haven’t been screaming at the left to wake up about these issues. We were having this same conversation in 2016. But Dems tend to reflexively view the concern for white people or for men as reactionary conservatism (or worse). The summer of 2020 exacerbated that dynamic by mainstreaming the idea that “safe places” involved white men sitting in a corner and shutting up so that others could have a platform. And so Dems keep falling farther behind with groups that used to be unshakably blue, like union workers and young men and Latinos who actually are seeing the right wing as empowering.

If this election didn’t lay out the bare truth to Dem leadership, I don’t know what else could. They're not going to be able to “coalition” their way out of these issue. They need to be able to be authentically liberal while also authentically giving a damn about the future of the entire population, not just target demographics.

And we are going to continue talking about this forever because the Democratic Party will never learn. They're too far gone to realize the reason they keep losing is because they do painfully little to get straight white men to care about their policies. And instead, they'll just keep attacking them, calling them misogynists and racists in hopes of bullying them into a vote, while at the same time telling those same men to sit out on any meaningful dialogue because their majority voice doesn't need to be heard on their issues.

 

[Lempo]

Boys are just failing en masse. Close to nothing is being done to address this, or even understand it.

If it were girls, they would be "failed". Just sayin'.

 

[Finlandia WOAT]

And instead, they'll just keep attacking them, calling them misogynists and racists

Where are you seeing this.

 

[Negan4Coach]

The policy they focused on was abortion rights, a topic that affects men almost as much as women. It's not portrayed as such, because most people have the critical thinking skills of field mice. And ultimately, that's what this all comes down to. It's not policy, it's not gender or identity politics, it's ignorance.

People voted on vibes, not policy. That's why you're getting so many people that are JUST now figuring out what Trump's tariffs mean. That's why, in a study, when presented with a list of policies completely blind, no names attached, people on both sides of the political spectrum and undecided voters picked Harris' over Trump's the majority of the time.

Again, I don't disagree that the Democrats need to do a better job of getting their messages across. Clearly, what they've been doing isn't working (and frankly, losing ground on "always blue" states should be a MAJOR wake up call).

But ultimately, they simply need a more charismatic candidate that can explain their messages in a way that the least educated American can understand. Tim Walz was GREAT at that. He came out swinging, used football analogies, car talk, and wasn't afraid to "go low" to emphasize his point. Then like a week later, he was completely neutered by the campaign advisors. Because they completely missed WHO Walz was really talking to

Woah- woah...everything else aside...you can't REALLY believe that a guy like Tim Walz is what resonates with men, do you? Tim Waltz is a grotesque caricature of what the corporate Democrat consultant class who were long ago emasculated on elite ivy league campuses imagines passes for "masculinity" in the real world.


And no- you're never going to find a left wing "Joe Rogan" to "move young men towards feminism" as that weirdo on Morning Joe said this morning. I mean wow.

Where are you seeing this.

Really? You would think that after this week gaslighting would be dropped writ large as a strategy

 

[Finlandia WOAT]

Really? You would think that after this week gaslighting would be dropped writ large as a strategy

So give an example then

 

[Blueline Bomber]

Woah- woah...everything else aside...you can't REALLY believe that a guy like Tim Walz is what resonates with men, do you? Tim Waltz is a grotesque caricature of what the corporate Democrat consultant class who were long ago emasculated on elite ivy league campuses imagines passes for "masculinity" in the real world.


And no- you're never going to find a left wing "Joe Rogan" to "move young men towards feminism" as that weirdo on Morning Joe said this morning. I mean wow.


Really? You would think that after this week gaslighting would be dropped writ large as a strategy

I mean, Tim Walz seems like a guy that loves his family deeply, is beloved by his students/student athletes, and is confident enough in his masculinity to not to be concerned about what others may say about him.

I'm sure the circles you've been encapsulated in have painted a very different picture.

 

[Unsustainable]

I mean, Tim Walz seems like a guy that loves his family deeply, is beloved by his students/student athletes, and is confident enough in his masculinity to not to be concerned about what others may say about him.

I'm sure the circles you've been encapsulated in have painted a very different picture.

To me he came off as fake, Vance came off as sincere and relatable in all of the interviews I seen.

 

[Blueline Bomber]

To me he came off as fake, Vance came off as sincere and relatable in all of the interviews I seen.

See, I would have said the exact opposite. That's wild.

 

[Navin R Slavin]

See, I would have said the exact opposite. That's wild.

confirmation bias is a helluva drug

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

To me he came off as fake, Vance came off as sincere and relatable in all of the interviews I seen.

See, I would have said the exact opposite. That's wild.

People see what they want to see. Confirmation bias.

 

[Lempo]

You're frozen, when your heart's not open.

 

[Blueline Bomber]

confirmation bias is a helluva drug

I mean, I thought Vance was fake because he tried to put forth the story about a drug-addicted mother, ruined by immigrants coming into the county, and he’s just a blue collar, good old boy rising through the ranks due to the American dream.

The truth is that his mother was addicted to drugs, but they weren’t street drugs. She was constantly stealing drugs from the pharmacy that she worked at. Immigrants had nothing to do with it. And the “blue collar, good old boy” he portrayed was a false personality. After graduating high school, he served in the military as a journalist, then went to Yale, graduated and worked as a corporate lawyer. Then as a venture capitalist before becoming a US Senator. Apparently the most manual labor he’s done in his life is working at a grocery store at 17.

But again, this would require people to research their candidates and not simply take what they say at face value.

 

[Finlandia WOAT]

I thought Vance was fake because he wrote a book about how he's from Appalachia, and he's actually from Cincinnati

 

[Derailed75]

I mean, I thought Vance was fake because he tried to put forth the story about a drug-addicted mother, ruined by immigrants coming into the county, and he’s just a blue collar, good old boy rising through the ranks due to the American dream.

The truth is that his mother was addicted to drugs, but they weren’t street drugs. She was constantly stealing drugs from the pharmacy that she worked at. Immigrants had nothing to do with it. And the “blue collar, good old boy” he portrayed was a false personality. After graduating high school, he served in the military as a journalist, then went to Yale, graduated and worked as a corporate lawyer. Then as a venture capitalist before becoming a US Senator. Apparently the most manual labor he’s done in his life is working at a grocery store at 17.

But again, this would require people to research their candidates and not simply take what they say at face value.

You obviously don't know anyone that's been in the Marines let alone the military if you think any enlisted person has never done manual labor.

He did more manual labor in boot camp than the majority of people do in a life time.

 

[Blueline Bomber]

You obviously don't know anyone that's been in the Marines let alone the military if you think any enlisted person has never done manual labor.

He did more manual labor in boot camp than the majority of people do in a life time.

Military journalists don’t typically go through boot camp. I suppose it’s possible that Vance did. He did, after all, write about his experience in boot camp in his book and wrote about the missions he went on. But given that he’s embellished other aspects of his life in the book, I’d be cautious about taking anything he wrote in there as certifiable facts.

Oh, and my uncle is a Marine. Recently retired from service, but still a Marine.

 

[Unsustainable]

Military journalists don’t typically go through boot camp. I suppose it’s possible that Vance did. He did, after all, write about his experience in boot camp in his book and wrote about the missions he went on. But given that he’s embellished other aspects of his life in the book, I’d be cautious about taking anything he wrote in there as certifiable facts.

Oh, and my uncle is a Marine. Recently retired from service, but still a Marine.

Walz embellished his military record, he retired E8, never completed requirements for E9 that he claimed, never deployed and resigned 2 months prior to his unit being deployed where he would have known it was going to happen.

 

[Blueline Bomber]

Walz embellished his military record, he retired E8, never completed requirements for E9 that he claimed, never deployed and resigned 2 months prior to his unit being deployed where he would have known it was going to happen.

Fact-checking attacks on Walz's military record by Vance and other Republicans

Republican vice presidential nominee and Ohio Sen. JD Vance sought to negatively frame the 24-year military career of Democratic vice presidential candidate Tim Walz, Minnesota’s current governor.

www.pbs.org

Walz retired from the Minnesota National Guard in May 2005. He had submitted retirement paperwork five to seven months beforehand, Fox News reported, citing the Minnesota National Guard.

In March 2005, Walz’s battalion had been notified about a possible deployment to Iraq within two years, Walz’s congressional campaign said in a news release that month, citing the National Guard Public Affairs Office. The Minnesota National Guard said the battalion then received an official order about mobilizing for deployment to Iraq in July 2005, after Walz retired.

Vance’s statement misleads by distorting the timeline. Walz had not been “asked by his country to go to Iraq,” as Vance said. He had been given a two-year window for a potential, not definite, deployment. And the official deployment notice came after Walz’s retirement.

Walz has said since before his Army retirement that he left to run for Congress. He filed his candidacy paperwork in February 2005, before the March 2005 notification about the potential deployment.

 

[Bub]

Walz was a Cosplay Bro, the 2024 version of Dukakis-in-a-tank. It's telling that among his first comments after nomination were his "He's weird!" words about Vance when he himself comes across as a weirder version of Barney Fife.

Regardless. People don't vote for (or against) a VP. Dems ran a poor candidate for President who too often came across as a semi-competent babbler, rarely had nimble answers for ANY question*, and was pumped up and buffered by a fawning press.**

I think there will be too much sand in the gears of the government for Trump to get much done the next four years, but anything that makes the Joy Reids and Jimmy Kimmels of the world whine and cry is good by me.

* - Check out her Anderson Cooper interview.
** - Remember Stephanie Ruhle on Maher? "She shouldn't answer any questions, look at who she's running against." We got weeks of comments like this before Harris gave any sit-down, unscripted interviews.

 

[Blueline Bomber]

Walz was a Cosplay Bro, the 2024 version of Dukakis-in-a-tank. It's telling that among his first comments after nomination were his "He's weird!" words about Vance when he himself comes across as a weirder version of Barney Fife.

Regardless. People don't vote for (or against) a VP. Dems ran a poor candidate for President who too often came across as a semi-competent babbler, rarely had nimble answers for ANY question*, and was pumped up and buffered by a fawning press.**

I think there will be too much sand in the gears of the government for Trump to get much done the next four years, but anything that makes the Joy Reids and Jimmy Kimmels of the world whine and cry is good by me.

* - Check out her Anderson Cooper interview.
** - Remember Stephanie Ruhle on Maher? "She shouldn't answer any questions, look at who she's running against." We got weeks of comments like this before Harris gave any sit-down, unscripted interviews.

The party that nominated Trump is going to talk about the speech patterns of another candidate? Is that really a can of worms you want to open?

A woman among the handful assembled on stage asked Trump if he would commit to passing childcare legislation, and if so what his specific proposal would be.

“Well, I would do that, and we’re sitting down, you know; I was, somebody, we had Senator Marco Rubio and my daughter, Ivanka, who was so impactful on that issue.… But I think when you talk about the kind of numbers that I’m talking about that because the childcare is childcare, couldn’t, you know, there’s something you have to have it, in this country you have to have it.”

But it’s good to see that you’ve already excused Trump from getting anything done before he’s even stepped into office.