this post was submitted on 26 Jul 2024
603 points (97.9% liked)

politics

19145 readers
2295 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Some Republicans are starting to seriously regret Donald Trump’s vice presidential nominee, Ohio Senator J.D. Vance.

It’s been only one week since Vance was nominated at the Republican National Convention, and already his own party members are expressing severe doubts about Trump’s pick. The former president’s allies have acknowledged that nominating Vance was the product of Trump’s absolute certainty that he would be able to defeat Joe Biden in November. While Vance wouldn’t do much for swing voters or independents, he would likely shore up support among Trump’s base.

But ever since Biden passed the torch to Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic Party’s new presumptive nominee, Republicans have begun to sour on Vance.

“The road got a lot harder. He was the only pick that wasn’t the safe pick. And I think everyone has now realized that,” one House Republican told Axios Thursday, under the condition of anonymity.

Another House Republican told Axios that Vance “doesn’t add much.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] solsangraal@lemmy.zip 21 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (3 children)

your cause is noble, but the outrage over mascara man vance bashing is misguided. "punching down" is insulting race, sexuality, gender, disability, and any other thing that no one chooses for themselves*. makeup is 100% a choice, for everyone. in vance's example it's a ridiculous choice, given the requisite strictly defined GOP persona of the "manly man," which obviously doesn't involve men wearing makeup. so vance will be mocked for it.

where's the outrage over making fun of trump's orange spray tan? guliani's hair dye leaking forehead?

and if you're going to bring "gendered insult" into the conversation, then exactly who is arguing under the flawed premise that mascara is just for women, if not the person calling the insult gendered?

don't worry, i make fun of many, many choices people make, from cartoonishly huge pickup trucks, to cargo shorts

*edit: apparently "punching down" is generally defined to mean attacking people 'less powerful' than yourself. i'm still including unchosen circumstances in my usage

[–] psivchaz@reddthat.com 18 points 4 months ago

I feel like there's only a handful of people in the world who can "punch down" at a US senator currently running for vice president. I don't think any of them are hanging out in Lemmy.

[–] AFKBRBChocolate@lemmy.world 12 points 4 months ago (1 children)

You're a monster. How could you make fun of cargo shorts?

[–] solsangraal@lemmy.zip 9 points 4 months ago (3 children)

LOL it's not just me. how many women do you know who don't think cargo shorts make us look like clowns?

[–] Promethiel@lemmy.world 16 points 4 months ago (1 children)

My mom says they make me look handsome and agrees that it's neat that I can carry all the sticks and rocks we find at the park!

[–] solsangraal@lemmy.zip 5 points 4 months ago

you do you champ!

[–] AFKBRBChocolate@lemmy.world 14 points 4 months ago (1 children)

That's just anger and jealousy because the fashion industry takes all the pockets from women's clothes so that there will be enough for men's cargo shorts. I mean, I get that, and it doesn't seem fair, but I'm not giving up all the pockets.

[–] solsangraal@lemmy.zip 8 points 4 months ago (1 children)

anger and jealousy because the fashion industry

which is completely justified. women get attacked for not looking perfect 100% of the time, not wearing makeup, not shaving their entire body, AND can't find any clothes that have a single functional pocket. and god forbid a gray hair shows up

meanwhile, i'm applauded for not giving a rat's ass what i look like, shaving zero square inches of any part of my body, and i have the option of clothes with ridiculous numbers of pockets. which IS an option because we don't have to worry about being attacked for not caring what anyone thinks

[–] AFKBRBChocolate@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

All true, but the answer isn't getting rid of cargo shorts

[–] solsangraal@lemmy.zip 4 points 4 months ago

no--don't get rid of cargo shorts! i need them for my dudebro cookouts

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago

They stop laughing when I pull an entire Chinese dinner for five out of those cargo shorts. Y'all sneak in your candy to the movies. I'll do it my way.