US Politics: A Tale of two Joes.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Centrist Simon Steele said:

When Ben Shapiro, Tucker Carlson, and Carlson's pasty bearded friend are the last bastion of "masculinity"--I'd have to say that masculinity--in any traditional, toxic sense--has long since died. 

I'd even extend this to most FNC personalities since the Obama era - Hannity, Beck, Gutfeld - or even Breitbart and Bannon.  None of them project any type of classic "masculinity," indeed quite the opposite.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

17 minutes ago, DMC said:

I'd even extend this to most FNC personalities since the Obama era - Hannity, Beck, Gutfeld - or even Breitbart and Bannon.  None of them project any type of classic "masculinity," indeed quite the opposite.

Now the last thought before I go to sleep is about Hannity's and Bannon's man tits.

TYVM

[Larry of the Lawn]

4 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Now the last thought before I go to sleep is about Hannity's and Bannon's man tits.

TYVM

Those people are all horrible but comments like this are pretty much right out [of] the right wing playbook.  

[A Horse Named Stranger]

1 minute ago, Lermo T.I. Krrrammpus said:

Those people are all horrible but comments like this are pretty much right out [of] the right wing playbook.  

check up thread, about Trumpists weak spot being accusations of unmanlyness, lacking toughness/whatever.

So if that's not how they want to be viewed portrayed, let's go precisely there.

[Larry of the Lawn]

6 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

check up thread, about Trumpists weak spot being accusations of unmanlyness, lacking toughness/whatever.

So if that's not how they want to be viewed portrayed, let's go precisely there.

I'm not sure why the collective insecurity of the right requires mocking someone's "mantits".  That's the kind of gendered insult I'd expect from them.  If you want to get down in the mud there don't let me stop you.  I just think it's counterproductive and is insulting to a bunch of people I'd suspect you'd prefer not to insult. 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

1 minute ago, Lermo T.I. Krrrammpus said:

I'm not sure why the collective insecurity of the right requires mocking someone's "mantits".  That's the kind of gendered insult I'd expect from them.  If you want to get down in the mud there don't let me stop you.  I just think it's counterproductive and is insulting to a bunch of people I'd suspect you'd prefer not to insult. 

The people, I suspect you might think of, are none of those wannabe alpha-male types, who need to project some sorta of manlyness to the outside to cover their frail egos. So I am inclined to give those folks a bit more credit.

Bannon and Hannity are desperate for their macho perception.  So their body image as part of it, is fair game in my view. As much as Cuck's crybaby routine, which is as far from that alpha manlyness as you can get.

[Larry of the Lawn]

11 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

The people, I suspect you might think of, are none of those wannabe alpha-male types, who need to project some sorta of manlyness to the outside to cover their frail egos. So I am inclined to give those folks a bit more credit.

Bannon and Hannity are desperate for their macho perception.  So their body image as part of it, is fair game in my view. As much as Cuck's crybaby routine, which is as far from that alpha manlyness as you can get.

Yeah, I see what you're saying I just don't understand why you'd want to use their language of bigotry to do it.  Not trying to make a big deal out of this.  I just think using their own framing and language earnestly is buying into that worldview.   YMMV.  

Is "Cuck" here supposed to be a specific person?  That's another word where using it as an insult is buying into toxic masculinity etc.

 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

13 minutes ago, Lermo T.I. Krrrammpus said:

Is "Cuck" here supposed to be a specific person?  That's another word where using it as an insult is buying into toxic masculinity etc.

 

Carlson. The neo-nazis who watch him on repeat and say stuff like: you can't cuk the tuck. 

So I take some petty pleasure just refering to him as Cuck Carlson. 

The buying into it bit, that would imply that it pre-occupies my thinking/perception of the world. It doesn't. I merely reserve it for mocking that bunch. As stated up-thread. They don't care about getting called racists and biggots, they care about their alpha-maleness (or image of). So let's strip away he layers of their perceived masculinity layer by layer by layer. 

[ThinkerX]

okay...obvious question here:

Given that incumbents tend to be reelected, just how many seats in the house of representatives are actually 'in play' this time around - margins of less than say 5%? Forty? Fifty?

[Larry of the Lawn]

1 minute ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Carlson. The neo-nazis who watch him on repeat and say stuff like: you can't cuk the tuck. 

So I take some petty pleasure just refering to him as Cuck Carlson. 

The buying into it bit, that would imply that it pre-occupies my thinking/perception of the world. It doesn't. I merely reserve it for mocking that bunch. As stated up-thread. They don't care about getting called racists and biggots, they care about their alpha-maleness (or image of). So let's strip away he layers of their perceived masculinity layer by layer by layer. 

You do you.  I'm just questioning the method rather than the intent.  Feels like a step away from using anti-gay slurs to strip away "the layers of their perceived masculinity".  

[Zorral]

1 hour ago, Centrist Simon Steele said:

When Trump, Ben Shapiro, Tucker Carlson, and Carlson's pasty bearded friend are the last bastion of "masculinity"--I'd have to say that masculinity--in any traditional, toxic sense--has long since died. 

Particularly the non-toxic traditional old masculinity -- they don't have a bit of it.

Now to be masculine you have to assault women, verbally and physically, and everybody else, particularly verbally, and you know, kill them from a distance, or knock them out with drugs to kill them, etc. That's who They are.

O and play a lot of video games in which they achieve maga kill levels.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

19 minutes ago, Lermo T.I. Krrrammpus said:

You do you.  I'm just questioning the method rather than the intent.  Feels like a step away from using anti-gay slurs to strip away "the layers of their perceived masculinity".  

In general I think you're right, but with these specific types I think you have to be willing to use their own language to undercut them and really bruise their inflated egos. 

[DMC]

To be clear I was not referring to body type when I listed those men (although, looking at again, I understand if one got that impression).  I was referring to their attitude and public persona.  They do not project the tough guy attitude that I think of when I think of traditional/classic masculinity.  O'Reilly did - the John Wayne type - which is why I didn't mention him.  But the rest of them generally just whine like children.  Or in Gutfeld and Breitbart's case try to be the funny smartass, which I also don't associate with masculinity.

1 hour ago, ThinkerX said:

Given that incumbents tend to be reelected, just how many seats in the house of representatives are actually 'in play' this time around - margins of less than say 5%? Forty? Fifty?

Hard to say first because it's not clear where the congressional ballot is going to be at.  538 has the GOP leading by just .5% right now, but I suspect it's a lot bigger - or will be come November.  If I had to guess, I'd say every seat that has a Cook PVI of D+7 to EVEN could be in play, and as of right now that's about 60 seats, or nearly 14%.  BUT, we don't know how many seats there will be in that interval until redistricting concludes, and it may well be significantly less (it's definitely going to be at least a little less).

[ThinkerX]

13 minutes ago, DMC said:

To be clear I was not referring to body type when I listed those men (although, looking at again, I understand if one got that impression).  I was referring to their attitude and public persona.  They do not project the tough guy attitude that I think of when I think of traditional/classic masculinity.  O'Reilly did - the John Wayne type - which is why I didn't mention him.  But the rest of them generally just whine like children.  Or in Gutfeld and Breitbart's case try to be the funny smartass, which I also don't associate with masculinity.

Hard to say first because it's not clear where the congressional ballot is going to be at.  538 has the GOP leading by just .5% right now, but I suspect it's a lot bigger - or will be come November.  If I had to guess, I'd say every seat that has a Cook PVI of D+7 to EVEN could be in play, and as of right now that's about 60 seats, or nearly 14%.  BUT, we don't know how many seats there will be in that interval until redistricting concludes, and it may well be significantly less (it's definitely going to be at least a little less).

So, if I am following this correctly, the D's

1 - start at +15 (?) seats.

2 - assuming 50 seats 'in play,' the R's would need to win 40 seats in order to claim a majority. 

3 - to remain in power, the D's need only win 25-26 of the seats 'in play.'

Seems even with gerrymandering, anti-voting laws, and a cycle in their favor, the R's have a bit of a challenge in front of them. They would pretty much have to win almost all of the 'seats in play' to claim a majority.

There is also the possibility the GOP might have shot themselves in the foot with some of these anti-voting provisions. After all, nothing says the D's could not challenge election outcomes by using these laws. Probably automatically end up in court - but could also expose the sort of shenanigans that result in prison. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[DMC]

7 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

1 - start at +15 (?) seats.

As of now the GOP only has to flip 5 seats to win the majority (they have 213 counting Nunes' vacant seat).  That is not a very tall order, and assuming they held all their seats, they could do so with the 8 (currently) Democratically held seats that have a Cook PVI of R+3 to R+6.  But again, redistricting, blah, blah, blah.  The point is the overwhelming majority of seats in play will be held by Democrats.

[Larry of the Lawn]

9 minutes ago, DMC said:

As of now the GOP only has to flip 5 seats to win the majority (they have 213 counting Nunes' vacant seat).  That is not a very tall order, and assuming they held all their seats, they could do so with the 8 (currently) Democratically held seats that have a Cook PVI of R+3 to R+6.  But again, redistricting, blah, blah, blah.  The point is the overwhelming majority of seats in play will be held by Democrats.

Who you gunning for for Dem primary for Toomey's seat?

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Lermo T.I. Krrrammpus said:

Who you gunning for for Dem primary for Toomey's seat?

Fetterman all the way, appears to have a pretty good advantage, polling ~45% when no one else is above 20.  Strongest pickup opportunity the Dems have - and a nice incentive to switch my registration from Florida to PA.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

No discussion of President Biden calling out the former President and his incitement and inaction a year ago today?

[Rippounet]

2 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

No discussion of President Biden calling out the former President and his incitement and inaction a year ago today?

One is tempted to say "it's about time!" but we all know Biden has to be very careful, lest he be accused of using his power to move against a political opponent.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

5 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

One is tempted to say "it's about time!" but we all know Biden has to be very careful, lest he be accused of using his power to move against a political opponent.

I actually love the fact that President Biden called the former President a loser and that he never mention him by name.