Biden Out of Race

[DirtDocMD]

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[DirtDocMD]

SBSQ #21: Why young men don't like Democrats

Plus, the New York City mayor’s race — and whether win probability models are broken.

www.natesilver.net

 

[PainInTheAnes]

Same thing can be said of people from the westboro baptist church, are you anti christianity as well?

lol, the same thing cannot by any stretch be said of westboro people. Try again. Also link me if any westboros have martyred themselves recently, interested to know

 

[rowsdower88]

This is an issue the left lost handily. Clearly he didn’t do enough to address most voters concerns. So I’d rather double down. Not only did he do next to nothing, with passive enforcement, he undid almost all of the Trump administrations border policy as well as some of Obama’s. Maybe I’d buy an argument that his attempt was to handle the border in a more humane way, but you can’t defend the fact that his actions directly caused the immigration crisis and the debate surrounding it to take the stage during the election. The rest of his policy was a last ditch effort to reverse course when he could no longer ignore the overwhelming public sentiment.

You're defining "next to nothing" to mean "didn't do enough to persuade voters". Again, changing the terms and declaring victory.

Maybe he could have done more to persuade voters, and again if you want to walk it back down to an easier claim go ahead. No hard feelings.

 

[DocMcCoy]

The slope of those lines is absolutely terrifying.

 

[buddababa]

lol, the same thing cannot by any stretch be said of westboro people. Try again. Also link me if any westboros have martyred themselves recently, interested to know

cant judge a religion by crazy individuals, just like people who accept lgbt into church when it goes against its teachings

 

[nimbus]

What’s race got to do with anything? I am firmly anti Islamist, which is a values system incompatible with modern civil life.

Same can be said of fundamentalist Christians. One thing Judaism got right is that they don’t proselytize.

 

[DocMcCoy]

You're defining "next to nothing" to mean "didn't do enough to persuade voters". Again, changing the terms and declaring victory.

Maybe he could have done more to persuade voters, and again if you want to walk it back down to an easier claim go ahead. No hard feelings.

Well now I’m saying he did worse than next to nothing, by reversing two administrations immigration polices, leading to a border crisis, which ended up being a major contributing factor in losing the election. Doing nothing might have been better.

 

[passiveobserver1979]

“
SAFETY/SECURITY


While the aid distribution was conducted safely and without incident, we understand that a number of civilians were injured after moving beyond the designated safe corridor and into a closed military zone. This was an area well beyond our secure distribution site. We recognize the tragic nature of the situation and remain committed to ensuring the safety of all civilians during humanitarian operations at all of our sites.”

-GHF

I believe the numbers, I don’t believe the implication that these are simply innocent bystanders just wandering around looking for the food sites which are well publicized.

Closed military zones are generally not great places for “civilians”.

“Civilians” take part in every part of Hamas operations as well. They harbor hostages, Hamas members, and participated in October 7.

Things didn’t turn out too good for Hitler, Goebbels, Goring and Himmler in the end. I suspect they won’t turn out that well for Netanyahu, Ben-Gvir and Smotrich too.

 

[rowsdower88]

Well now I’m saying he did worse than next to nothing, by reversing two administrations immigration polices, leading to a border crisis, which ended up being a major contributing factor in losing the election. Doing nothing might have been better.

Better... electorally? Maybe. Better for alternative reasons? Not necessarily.

I'll explain what I mean here. You're defining "next to nothing" or "worse than next to nothing" relative to what would have been the best electoral outcome for Biden, not what actual policy should be. It's like saying because Trump won the election, sending people to an El Salvadoran gulag is justified (or "better"). It's defining the terms of what is good/moral in terms of what gets someone in the office.

What "gets someone in office" is dependent on propaganda and the media more than actual policy positions IMO. I seriously doubt most Republicans in today's media environment trust Democratic politicians on the border issue, regardless of those Dems personal stances on it. That's the product of media and propaganda. The "border crisis" was exacerbated by numerous factors over decades and very likely wouldn't even be an issue today if we had never prioritized border security to begin with* (or if we didn't destabilize almost every South and Central American country at one point or another). This is to say nothing of the racial factors (Great Replacement Theory).

I think the people who fixate on the border/immigration are weird. There are a lot of weird people in America. It therefore doesn't surprise me that this is an issue Republicans can outperform Dems on.

*Downstream: Unintended Consequences in U.S. Immigration Policy — The Observer -- Basically an overview of circular migration that existed prior to strict border enforcement in the US and how increasing border security paradoxically shifted the incentives for Mexican laborers to remain in the US thereby increasing long term illegal immigration as opposed to transient flows back and forth.

 

[PainInTheAnes]

cant judge a religion by crazy individuals, just like people who accept lgbt into church when it goes against its teachings

I’m not judging a religion by crazy individuals. I’m judging the sect of the religion, which is substantial enough that it runs several countries with 10s of millions of people in them, that beheads people or blows themselves up with vehicles or planes or bombs.

To compare Islamists in the modern age with any other major sect of any other religion is completely insane. These people are the reason the Middle East is such a dump for the most part. They institute gender apartheid for a hundred million women.

Moral confusion in the left abounds to this day. Pathetic.

 

[PainInTheAnes]

Things didn’t turn out too good for Hitler, Goebbels, Goring and Himmler in the end. I suspect they won’t turn out that well for Netanyahu, Ben-Gvir and Smotrich too.

Just yikes.

Let me guess, Bin Laden was just a freedom fighter and you were exhilarated by 9/11?

 

[passiveobserver1979]

Just yikes.

Let me guess, Bin Laden was just a freedom fighter and you were exhilarated by 9/11?

Wrong. Bin Laden was a terrorist. I was horrified by 9/11 and spoke out strongly about it at that time.

No doubt though that you sir are most assuredly a certified A''hole.

 

[DocMcCoy]

Things didn’t turn out too good for Hitler, Goebbels, Goring and Himmler in the end. I suspect they won’t turn out that well for Netanyahu, Ben-Gvir and Smotrich too.

Comparing Netanyahu to Hitler… At so many levels, WOW.

 

[passiveobserver1979]

Comparing Netanyahu to Hitler… At so many levels, WOW.

Similar fundamentally psychopathic thinking.

 

[DocMcCoy]

Similar fundamental psychopathic thinking.

🤦‍♂️

 

[buddababa]

🤦‍♂️

watch more tucker carlson, less fox news

 

[Southpaw]

we can argue all we want here, but what I find indisputable is that the same social media machine that railed against Covid vaccines, wearing masks, and getting Trump back in office has absolutely turned against the relationship between the US and Israel and what Israel is doing to Palestinians. Honestly the turn is rather fascinating. It’s like Elon spending $280 million to get Trump elected and then realizing he’s a rotten egg. Or like US Senators not knowing whether to side with Elon (who will give them unlimited amounts of campaign money) or Trump (on the way out, but is a king maker).

 

[UscGhost]

I’m not judging a religion by crazy individuals. I’m judging the sect of the religion, which is substantial enough that it runs several countries with 10s of millions of people in them, that beheads people or blows themselves up with vehicles or planes or bombs.

To compare Islamists in the modern age with any other major sect of any other religion is completely insane. These people are the reason the Middle East is such a dump for the most part. They institute gender apartheid for a hundred million women.

Moral confusion in the left abounds to this day. Pathetic.

Rohingya genocide - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Buddhist nationalists committing genocide.

Using religion as a tool/excuse for committing crimes and oppression is not unique to Islam. Christianity/Catholicism has done its share over the centuries. They have just graduated to using politics and the legal system to do their dirty work

 

[zizzer]

Rohingya genocide - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Buddhist nationalists committing genocide.

Using religion as a tool/excuse for committing crimes and oppression is not unique to Islam. Christianity/Catholicism has done its share over the centuries. They have just graduated to using politics and the legal system to do their dirty work

I'm an atheist without any interest in defending any religion over others. Sure, you can find some examples in many of them where members perpetrate violence, but none are anywhere close to the scale of that of Islam. Even in some more developed countries, the proportion who support things like death for homosexuals and apostates is staggering. Whereas in other religions, the atrocities may be carried out for reasons of religious nationalism or racism, Islam seems to provide more source material for its followers to point to to justify the atrocities. Mohammed was a warlike conqueror without the "turn the other cheek" type of Jesus teachings to cherry pick out.

I'm going to pause here and note that, fortunately, many Muslims worldwide are indeed able to interpret the religion in a way that inspires them to do good unto others, and I've met many Muslims who are as genuinely nice of people as you could ever meet. You can almost never make sweeping judgements about an individual based on their religious beliefs or lack of. That said, it's not wrong to realize that Islam has a violence problem in large proportion beyond the scale of other modern-day religions. If rational people like us don't discuss it and look for solutions, then racists and bigots will... kind of similar to how an imbecile like Donald Trump got elected because Democrats were too late addressing many important issues seriously and competently.

 

[zizzer]

I would hope a physician trained to evaluate studies critically would be able to consider some other explanations for that data than "liberal women are more mentally diseased and unfit to make sound decisions." If you expect other physicians to jump to that conclusion based on a graph on a Twitter post, then yikes.

 

[chessknt]

I would hope a physician trained to evaluate studies critically would be able to consider some other explanations for that data than "liberal women are more mentally diseased and unfit to make sound decisions." If you expect other physicians to jump to that conclusion based on a graph on a Twitter post, then yikes.

A significant portion of people who post in this thread are Republicans first and physicians second. When the Republican party mandates that a narrative be true and accepted they will warp or forget their training in order to fall in line with the uneducated members who don't know better. We have seen this ad nauseum since C19 broke people's minds.

 

[aneftp]

I’m not saying mental health doesn’t totally exist. But the more we talk about it. The more people keep believing therapy and drugs are the answer.

You drill it into people with all this advertising of drugs and therapy. It becomes a problem. A problem people think they have when it’s just mainstream media pumping ideology of mental health into their brains.

The younger generation live in the TikTok and instagram world these days. Especially the young women. They are programmed and I say it truthfully. The programming the mainstream media does to their mental health.

 

[zizzer]

I agree that social media is overly prevalent and has negative effects on young people, but using phrases such as, "The programming the mainstream media does to their mental health" makes you sound like a tinfoil hat-wearing conspiratorial nutjob. I'm not sure if you're trying to say most of these people don't actually have problems or that media is causing their programs intentionally. Either is a bizarre take, especially the latter.

As a reminder, mental health issues aren't all equal. Most of that 50% isn't uncontrollable psychotic diseases rendering somebody unfit to form sound opinions and such as the tweet claims. It's mostly anxiety and depression which are readily helped by medications and especially by therapy.

 

[nimbus]

I'm an atheist without any interest in defending any religion over others. Sure, you can find some examples in many of them where members perpetrate violence, but none are anywhere close to the scale of that of Islam. Even in some more developed countries, the proportion who support things like death for homosexuals and apostates is staggering. Whereas in other religions, the atrocities may be carried out for reasons of religious nationalism or racism, Islam seems to provide more source material for its followers to point to to justify the atrocities. Mohammed was a warlike conqueror without the "turn the other cheek" type of Jesus teachings to cherry pick out.

I'm going to pause here and note that, fortunately, many Muslims worldwide are indeed able to interpret the religion in a way that inspires them to do good unto others, and I've met many Muslims who are as genuinely nice of people as you could ever meet. You can almost never make sweeping judgements about an individual based on their religious beliefs or lack of. That said, it's not wrong to realize that Islam has a violence problem in large proportion beyond the scale of other modern-day religions. If rational people like us don't discuss it and look for solutions, then racists and bigots will... kind of similar to how an imbecile like Donald Trump got elected because Democrats were too late addressing many important issues seriously and competently.

AFAIK Adolf Hitler was a Christian, not a Muslim. To this day Nazis claim a Christian identity.

 

[zizzer]

AFAIK Adolf Hitler was a Christian, not a Muslim. To this day Nazis claim a Christian identity.

He was, but the atrocities he committed weren't motivated by Christian ideology but by racial and nationalist ideology. Contrast that with fundamentalist Islamists, who are motivated by a reading based on Muhammad's own teachings and actions (which are much more violent than say, Jesus's) to a degree other modern religions are not.

The Bible certainly contains its share of atrocities such as stoning people, sacrificing people for military victory, dashing the heads of conquered peoples' babies on rocks, drowning everybody on Earth except one family, etc, but most are Old Testament and most modern Christians tend to point to Jesus's teachings of love and peace instead. Regardless of whether it makes sense theologically, that's what people do, and radical Christians trying to kill infidels in large numbers isn't a problem today as it is with Islam.

 

[nimbus]

He was, but the atrocities he committed weren't motivated by Christian ideology but by racial and nationalist ideology. Contrast that with fundamentalist Islamists, who are motivated by a reading based on Muhammad's own teachings and actions (which are much more violent than say, Jesus's) to a degree other modern religions are not.

The Bible certainly contains its share of atrocities such as stoning people, sacrificing people for military victory, dashing the heads of conquered peoples' babies on rocks, drowning everybody on Earth except one family, etc, but most are Old Testament and most modern Christians tend to point to Jesus's teachings of love and peace instead. Regardless of whether it makes sense theologically, that's what people do, and radical Christians trying to kill infidels in large numbers isn't a problem today as it is with Islam.

Christians were also responsible for the Crusades which lasted 3-4 centuries. They had a religiously motivated violence problem. Like you I’m an atheist. I’d be happy to throw out the babies with the bath water. But people love religion 🤷🏻‍♂️

 

[zizzer]

Christian doctrine wasn't the motivating factor as was competition with other religions to reclaim territories via military conquest, a practice of the medieval times. Religion was more of a motivating factor than for Hitler's holocaust, but it still wasn't really based on the doctrine itself in the way that Muhammad's teachings are construed by a large number of modern Islamists.

The more important difference is simply that Christianity seems to have widely evolved past that. Spreading the religion by violence on any wide scale in modern times is a problem more unique to Islam, perhaps in part due to the fundamental differences in the teachings of Jesus, the peaceful martyr, and Mohammad, the military leader.

 

[rowsdower88]

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/06/04/trump-columbia-education-antidiscrimination.html

"The U.S. Department of Education said Wednesday that Columbia University has failed to meet the standards for accreditation because the Ivy League school "is in violation of federal antidiscrimination laws" for allegedly tolerating harassment of Jewish students on campus.

The Education Department's Office for Civil Rights notified the Middle States Commission on Higher Education, an accrediting institution that Columbia belongs to, of the alleged violation."

Appeasement. Does. Not. Work.

 

[MirrorTodd]

What a crock of ****. lol can’t believe some doctors on this forum actually support this administration.

Enhancing National Security by Addressing Risks at Harvard University

 

[DirtDocMD]

 

[DirtDocMD]

I would hope a physician trained to evaluate studies critically would be able to consider some other explanations for that data than "liberal women are more mentally diseased and unfit to make sound decisions." If you expect other physicians to jump to that conclusion based on a graph on a Twitter post, then yikes.

There could be all kinds of explanations. Regardless, you don’t find it “interesting” that young “liberal” women report having mental illness at TWO AND A HALF TIMES (50% vs. 20%) the rate of “conservative” women?? Is that “statistically significant”?? That doesn’t peak your curiosity, at all?? You’re just going to try and explain it away? Mmmmkay….

 

[DocMcCoy]

They just don’t get it.

Vast majority of Americans don’t see Dems as a party with strong leaders that get stuff done: CNN poll

Fewer than a fifth of Americans view Democrats as a party with strong leadership that is able to get things done, with Republicans scoring roughly double on both of those metrics, a new poll has fo…

nypost.com

 

[rowsdower88]

Christian doctrine wasn't the motivating factor as was competition with other religions to reclaim territories via military conquest, a practice of the medieval times. Religion was more of a motivating factor than for Hitler's holocaust, but it still wasn't really based on the doctrine itself in the way that Muhammad's teachings are construed by a large number of modern Islamists.

The more important difference is simply that Christianity seems to have widely evolved past that. Spreading the religion by violence on any wide scale in modern times is a problem more unique to Islam, perhaps in part due to the fundamental differences in the teachings of Jesus, the peaceful martyr, and Mohammad, the military leader.

Say we take all of this as true, that Islam as practiced in various settings is a motivating factor for violence.

What policy changes would you make today if you could? Muslim travel bans? What do you want to change?

 

[aneftp]

What a crock of ****. lol can’t believe some doctors on this forum actually support this administration.

Enhancing National Security by Addressing Risks at Harvard University

It’s not that docs believe the trump administration on Harvard. It’s that Harvard believes DEI and affirmative action help. It doesn’t help. I certainly don’t believe trump on this national security issue but he’s saying it’s as an excuse. It’s blatantly obvious. He’s trolling Harvard. Just like Harvard trolls everyone they will do what they want to do. Bullies don’t like to get bullied and Harvard is a bully.

Just as Harvard is saying DEI and affirmative action is better for society. (And Harvard was proven wrong by the united state Supreme Court in 2023) getting called out on it and they are still trying to circumvent it).

So Harvard makes up a load of crap left leaning docs believe in. Just your bias in believing what you want to believe and even “studies” are very bias that are produced and written on this ideology. The left is so clueless in their diversity agenda and use double speak. If diversity was so important in life say in competitive sports (hiring management etc) why are they more diverse in hiring more diverse athletes? But continue to select the very best athletes to their program and ignore diversity in competitive sports. I can reason the left way of thinking the extra scholarship (not a walk on) guy on the bench who’s a short Asian guy adds more to team building than 12 African American guys on the team.

They both (trump and Harvard) are at odds with ideology.

 

[GravelRider]

There could be all kinds of explanations. Regardless, you don’t find it “interesting” that young “liberal” women report having mental illness at TWO AND A HALF TIMES (50% vs. 20%) the rate of “conservative” women?? Is that “statistically significant”?? That doesn’t peak your curiosity, at all?? You’re just going to try and explain it away? Mmmmkay….

What is your interpretation of that? Maybe liberal women are the good kind of crazy? 😜

 

[rowsdower88]

They just don’t get it.

View attachment 404532

Vast majority of Americans don’t see Dems as a party with strong leaders that get stuff done: CNN poll

Fewer than a fifth of Americans view Democrats as a party with strong leadership that is able to get things done, with Republicans scoring roughly double on both of those metrics, a new poll has fo…

nypost.com

Many Americans want to see the people they disagree with suffer, even if that makes them materially worse off.

Trump and Republicans "get stuff done". That translates to gulags in El Salvador, gutting international aid (death toll projected to be millions), deep medicaid cuts and work requirements with millions of Americans uninsured, etc...

No doubt Dems have a messaging problem as well. They absolutely need to be more aggressive. Watching the latest judiciary hearings has been depressing, they're bringing decorum to what should be a gun fight.

 

[ak_ps]

Christians were also responsible for the Crusades which lasted 3-4 centuries. They had a religiously motivated violence problem. Like you I’m an atheist. I’d be happy to throw out the babies with the bath water. But people love religion 🤷🏻‍♂️

Christians enacted the Crusades. Islam was responsible for their occurrence in the first place. To disregard such a commonly misunderstood topic in history shows a blatant atheistic tone towards this topic which is inherently anti-Western.

 

[cchoukal]

There could be all kinds of explanations. Regardless, you don’t find it “interesting” that young “liberal” women report having mental illness at TWO AND A HALF TIMES (50% vs. 20%) the rate of “conservative” women?? Is that “statistically significant”?? That doesn’t peak your curiosity, at all?? You’re just going to try and explain it away? Mmmmkay….

Not particularly, no. Liberal women predominantly live in cities. They predominantly have more money. They’re predominantly more educated, and perhaps all those things make them more introspective into their internal state, and more likely seek out and are able to afford therapy and healthcare. Whether this is more more likely than your apparent interpretation that liberal women are messed up in the head is impossible to know. You have your interpretation, and I have mine, and neither one is more likely to be correct based on the evidence you presented. You know this already, though. Because you understand science and math, right?

 

[DocMcCoy]

Many Americans want to see the people they disagree with suffer, even if that makes them materially worse off.

Trump and Republicans "get stuff done". That translates to gulags in El Salvador, gutting international aid (death toll projected to be millions), deep medicaid cuts and work requirements, etc...

No doubt Dems have a messaging problem as well. They absolutely need to be more aggressive. Watching the latest judiciary hearings has been depressing, they're bringing decorum to what should be a gun fight.

Well I agree with the last part, but I don’t understand the “wanting to see people suffer”. I don’t understand the “owning the libs” rhetoric honestly. It feels more like so many people where so incredibly unhappy with the trajectory of the country that they are willing to accept Trumps bulldozer and haphazard way of addressing the issues. Because at least it’s moving the needle somewhere (as long as he doesn’t torch the economy) even if its like watching a cluster fk itself in slow motion. Especially when that “get stuff done” translates to record polling numbers for Trump.

From the outside looking in, it’s like the left wants to alienate anybody that isn’t in lockstep with their platform, but they don’t even know what their platform is!

I think they are losing the moderates and the time to right the ship gets shorter and shorter by the day.

 

[nimbus]

Christians enacted the Crusades. Islam was responsible for their occurrence in the first place. To disregard such a commonly misunderstood topic in history shows a blatant atheistic tone towards this topic which is inherently anti-Western.

It was a land, power, and domination grab by both sides. That will never change.

 

[rowsdower88]

Well I agree with the last part, but I don’t understand the “wanting to see people suffer”. I don’t understand the “owning the libs” rhetoric honestly.

That's... Republican rhetoric. That's often their stated and explicit goal.

It feels more like so many people where so incredibly unhappy with the trajectory of the country that they are willing to accept Trumps bulldozer and haphazard way of addressing the issues. Because at least it’s moving the needle somewhere (as long as he doesn’t torch the economy) even if its like watching a cluster fk itself in slow motion. Especially when that “get stuff done” translates to record polling numbers for Trump.

You're saying people want spectacle? Sure. That translates to a lot of violence being done in practice. How many people will end up dying just because of PEPFAR cuts? How many Republican (or Democratic) voters even know what PEPFAR is?

From the outside looking in, it’s like the left wants to alienate anybody that isn’t in lockstep with their platform, but they don’t even know what their platform is!

IMO, this is more a problem of left leaning media personalities than Democratic politicians. To be sure, there are some Dems who alienate voters (Menendez). But if you look at the actions of even the people in the party who ARE on the far left (AOC and Bernie) they're actively campaigning in red states to persuade voters.

Republicans purity test on voting at this point. If you aren't in line with Trump, you're out of the party apparatus.

Democrats (or Democratic influencers generally) purity test on things that are unrelated to actual voting. Examples: Are you supporting Palestine enough? Are you for a specific wealth tax? Are you supportive enough of LGBTQ issues?

Which I believe is a mistake politically, but not necessarily wrong morally.

Historically, the national Dems made an awful lot of compromises for political power by making common cause with the southern state Dems in the FDR era. They pushed through some pretty odious **** to keep them in the tent.

I don't think Dems need to dump trans people or immigrant rights en mass to win votes now or not, but if they do need to it's a bad sign for the country.

I think they are losing the moderates and the time to right the ship gets shorter and shorter by the day.

"Righting the ship" can mean a lot of things.

Aggressive rhetoric and political messaging is one thing. Abandoning principles is another.

There was polling that suggested Trump was underwater on immigration RECENTLY. Those polls have since showed him improving on that metric IMO because Abrego Garcia and the El Salvadorian gulag is out of the news cycle now. If people aren't hearing about it constantly, it doesn't maintain traction.

 

[DirtDocMD]

Not particularly, no. Liberal women predominantly live in cities. They predominantly have more money. They’re predominantly more educated, and perhaps all those things make them more introspective into their internal state, and more likely seek out and are able to afford therapy and healthcare. Whether this is more more likely than your apparent interpretation that liberal women are messed up in the head is impossible to know. You have your interpretation, and I have mine, and neither one is more likely to be correct based on the evidence you presented. You know this already, though. Because you understand science and math, right?

‘Cause them dirt poor conservative “rural” women don’t get no doctorin’ or “edumucation”….

Got it….

 

[cchoukal]

‘Cause them dirt poor conservative “rural” women don’t get no doctorin’ or “edumucation”….

Got it….

If that’s what you want to believe, sure, but I said predominantly. Again, you already know this. Because you understand science and math. You’re just being deliberately obstinate.

 

[DocMcCoy]

That's... Republican rhetoric. That's often their stated and explicit goal.

I guess don’t understand a large percentage of the party willing to cut off their nose to spite their face. Maybe that’s ignorance on my part. I understand its application in the culture war, but I don’t think it applies to all policies universally. Obviously, they aren’t willing to tank the economy to own the libs, as that’s where Trump torpedoed his poll numbers.

You're saying people want spectacle? Sure. That translates to a lot of violence being done in practice. How many people will end up dying just because of PEPFAR cuts? How many Republican (or Democratic) voters even know what PEPFAR is?

I’m not saying they want spectacle. I think they are willing to hold their nose and avert their eyes while he smashes everything with a sledgehammer and chainsaw, because at the very least the chaos will effect issues they care about to some degree.

Admittedly, I didn’t know what PEPFAR cuts were until looking it up just now. I think a garden variety Trump response would be you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet. (I don’t agree with those particular cuts after reviewing them BTW). But the fact most people don’t even know what it is speaks of issues right or wrong the electorate cares about more.

IMO, this is more a problem of left leaning media personalities than Democratic politicians. To be sure, there are some Dems who alienate voters (Menendez). But if you look at the actions of even the people in the party who ARE on the far left (AOC and Bernie) they're actively campaigning in red states to persuade voters.

Republicans purity test on voting at this point. If you aren't in line with Trump, you're out of the party apparatus.

Democrats (or Democratic influencers generally) purity test on things that are unrelated to actual voting. Examples: Are you supporting Palestine enough? Are you for a specific wealth tax? Are you supportive enough of LGBTQ issues?

Which I believe is a mistake politically, but not necessarily wrong morally.

Historically, the national Dems made an awful lot of compromises for political power by making common cause with the southern state Dems in the FDR era. They pushed through some pretty odious **** to keep them in the tent.

I don't think Dems need to dump trans people or immigrant rights en mass to win votes now or not, but if they do need to it's a bad sign for the country

Maybe, the FDR era compromises are a pretty convincing example. I won’t tread the dangerous waters of who’s the more “morally” right party. I will say that sentiment permeates the Democratic Party; it leads to downplaying republican/moderate concerns and cloture of healthy debate, resulting in alienation of potential swing voters. (Me).

Taking the throttle off “the culture war” might help. An aside, Imane Khalif is back in the news…

"Righting the ship" can mean a lot of things.

Aggressive rhetoric and political messaging is one thing. Abandoning principles is another.

There was polling that suggested Trump was underwater on immigration RECENTLY. Those polls have since showed him improving on that metric IMO because Abrego Garcia and the El Salvadorian gulag is out of the news cycle now. If people aren't hearing about it constantly, it doesn't maintain traction.

Principles are important, but people are fickle. Ive been looking at historical polling lately. When Clinton was at one his lowest approval ratings during the Lewinsky scandal etc, his job specific approval was still high and dems actually gained seats in the house during those midterms. Meaning people don’t care if the president is a dirt bag if they believe he is doing the job they hired him to do.

I beg to differ regarding immigration coverage, it is still very much in the news, just not in the way it has been. If for every Abrego Garcia, there is a Mohamed Sabry Soliman, how will you expect those poll numbers to look? You can’t just wash it out with continued negative coverage, if there is in fact coverage that supports the “policy” (I’m not arguing it’s a good policy). Concerning the rest of his numbers, he hasn’t reached first term lows, and you can find historical polling from Biden back to Regan that shows where policy has directly caused presidential approval ratings to be as low or lower than Trumps all time low. So why aren’t his lower? And what does that mean?

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

It’s not that docs believe the trump administration on Harvard. It’s that Harvard believes DEI and affirmative action help. It doesn’t help. I certainly don’t believe trump on this national security issue but he’s saying it’s as an excuse. It’s blatantly obvious. He’s trolling Harvard. Just like Harvard trolls everyone they will do what they want to do. Bullies don’t like to get bullied and Harvard is a bully.

Just as Harvard is saying DEI and affirmative action is better for society. (And Harvard was proven wrong by the united state Supreme Court in 2023) getting called out on it and they are still trying to circumvent it).

So Harvard makes up a load of crap left leaning docs believe in. Just your bias in believing what you want to believe and even “studies” are very bias that are produced and written on this ideology. The left is so clueless in their diversity agenda and use double speak. If diversity was so important in life say in competitive sports (hiring management etc) why are they more diverse in hiring more diverse athletes? But continue to select the very best athletes to their program and ignore diversity in competitive sports. I can reason the left way of thinking the extra scholarship (not a walk on) guy on the bench who’s a short Asian guy adds more to team building than 12 African American guys on the team.

They both (trump and Harvard) are at odds with ideology.

Kind of nit picking here, but just because the court rules against something doesn't make it worse for society. SCOTUS gets societal level things wrong not infrequently.

 

[aneftp]

Kind of nit picking here, but just because the court rules against something doesn't make it worse for society. SCOTUS gets societal level things wrong not infrequently.

Harvard does not need to disclose its hiring process or admissions process. Harvard is a private institution.

But if Harvard wants to get federal funding it has to play by the govt rules. Yes or no?

Unless Harvard is hiding how it does hiring against government rules?

Seems to me the bully Harvard just wants to play by its own rules. And it has ever right.

Just don’t take government money.

That’s the easiest way to solve this issue.

Both sides can call it a day and move on

 

[GravelRider]

‘Cause them dirt poor conservative “rural” women don’t get no doctorin’ or “edumucation”….

Got it….

While we’re trying to insult people’s health as it relates to their political party affiliation, should we do obesity rates and voters for Donald Trump? That might be fun.

 

[buddababa]

Christian doctrine wasn't the motivating factor as was competition with other religions to reclaim territories via military conquest, a practice of the medieval times. Religion was more of a motivating factor than for Hitler's holocaust, but it still wasn't really based on the doctrine itself in the way that Muhammad's teachings are construed by a large number of modern Islamists.

The more important difference is simply that Christianity seems to have widely evolved past that. Spreading the religion by violence on any wide scale in modern times is a problem more unique to Islam, perhaps in part due to the fundamental differences in the teachings of Jesus, the peaceful martyr, and Mohammad, the military leader.

your analysis is completely wrong. I have studied comparative religions, your take is 1000% wrong. You're speaking from a personal bias. If you take any religious text, the Talmud is the most violent text, this has been verified by gronk and other religious historians

 

[aneftp]

While we’re trying to insult people’s health as it relates to their political party affiliation, should we do obesity rates and voters for Donald Trump? That might be fun.

More republicans are obese than democrat voters.

Doesn’t change the mental health aspect that dietdocmd pointed out.

Me personally. I think u should focus less on mental health and more on obesity.

Kinda of ironic right?