Are DCUM Political Topics Changing Your Vote?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I come on here to laugh at the sheeple that are suddenly pro-Kamaka despite never casting a vote for her in their life.

+1 Y’all cain’t take away mah freedom.

Look at the UK where you can be jailed for a social media post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I come on here to laugh at the sheeple that are suddenly pro-Kamaka despite never casting a vote for her in their life.

+1 Y’all cain’t take away mah freedom.

Look at the UK where you can be jailed for a social media post.

Look at the US where you can buy an AR-15 online. MAGA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I come on here to laugh at the sheeple that are suddenly pro-Kamaka despite never casting a vote for her in their life.

I come on here to laugh at troll posts trying to stir discontent…. Like yours.

Sorry, Madame President it will be. And I will be directly voting for her in November

DP. I am voting for Harris too. That doesn’t mean I am blind to the deep issues in the Democratic Party. It just means that the alternative is simply not a possibility. Trump cannot under any circumstances become President again. I realize I am sacrificing some aspects of women’s safety and rights to vote for Harris, and I am very worried about her foreign policy with teens that are draft-age, but the alternative is unthinkable.

I believe Jan. 6th was an attempted coup.

I believe women should have safe and effective access to abortion.

I strongly support labor.

I believe the border should be secure.

I believe the trans rights movement is a deeply misogynist men’s rights movement, as firmly dedicated to the oppression of women as some of the grimmest of theocratic regimes.

I believe medical historians in the future will look with abject horror at medicalized gender affirmative care for children.

Voting for Harris doesn’t mean I agree with her on everything. And, to bring it back to the original topic, DCUM has taught me that I absolutely do not want to be remotely associated with the progressive left. The LWNJ are indistinguishable from the RWNJ and are as cruel and destructive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I come on here to laugh at the sheeple that are suddenly pro-Kamaka despite never casting a vote for her in their life.

I come on here to laugh at troll posts trying to stir discontent…. Like yours.

Sorry, Madame President it will be. And I will be directly voting for her in November

DP. I am voting for Harris too. That doesn’t mean I am blind to the deep issues in the Democratic Party. It just means that the alternative is simply not a possibility. Trump cannot under any circumstances become President again. I realize I am sacrificing some aspects of women’s safety and rights to vote for Harris, and I am very worried about her foreign policy with teens that are draft-age, but the alternative is unthinkable.

I believe Jan. 6th was an attempted coup.

I believe women should have safe and effective access to abortion.

I strongly support labor.

I believe the border should be secure.

I believe the trans rights movement is a deeply misogynist men’s rights movement, as firmly dedicated to the oppression of women as some of the grimmest of theocratic regimes.

I believe medical historians in the future will look with abject horror at medicalized gender affirmative care for children.

Voting for Harris doesn’t mean I agree with her on everything. And, to bring it back to the original topic, DCUM has taught me that I absolutely do not want to be remotely associated with the progressive left. The LWNJ are indistinguishable from the RWNJ and are as cruel and destructive.

In other words, you mostly agree with the GOP but will vote Harris because she wants adult women to terminate at will the lives of about-to-be-born women?

[Anonymous]

No because you still can’t have honest policy discussions without trolls or bots or being accused of things. There is some good information though. I am still voting Blue but want a thoughtful and honest policy discussion on immigration.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I come on here to laugh at the sheeple that are suddenly pro-Kamaka despite never casting a vote for her in their life.

I come on here to laugh at troll posts trying to stir discontent…. Like yours.

Sorry, Madame President it will be. And I will be directly voting for her in November

DP. I am voting for Harris too. That doesn’t mean I am blind to the deep issues in the Democratic Party. It just means that the alternative is simply not a possibility. Trump cannot under any circumstances become President again. I realize I am sacrificing some aspects of women’s safety and rights to vote for Harris, and I am very worried about her foreign policy with teens that are draft-age, but the alternative is unthinkable.

I believe Jan. 6th was an attempted coup.

I believe women should have safe and effective access to abortion.

I strongly support labor.

I believe the border should be secure.

I believe the trans rights movement is a deeply misogynist men’s rights movement, as firmly dedicated to the oppression of women as some of the grimmest of theocratic regimes.

I believe medical historians in the future will look with abject horror at medicalized gender affirmative care for children.

Voting for Harris doesn’t mean I agree with her on everything. And, to bring it back to the original topic, DCUM has taught me that I absolutely do not want to be remotely associated with the progressive left. The LWNJ are indistinguishable from the RWNJ and are as cruel and destructive.

In other words, you mostly agree with the GOP but will vote Harris because she wants adult women to terminate at will the lives of about-to-be-born women?

Ridiculous trolling.

On abortion, I am actually okay with limits around trimesters, etc. I’m not okay with abortion the day before birth, despite your trolling. That is consistent with what most Americans believe.

I do not believe the modern GOP agrees Jan 6 was an attempted coup. I also am a strong believer in climate change, also not a Republican position.

Truthfully I am politically homeless, but voting for someone who attempted a coup is simply not possible, so Harris it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I come on here to laugh at the sheeple that are suddenly pro-Kamaka despite never casting a vote for her in their life.

+1 Y’all cain’t take away mah freedom.

Look at the UK where you can be jailed for a social media post.

Look at the US where you can buy an AR-15 online. MAGA.

You absolutely can buy an AR15 online. I’ve purchased almost a dozen this way!


Then the store or seller ships it directly to a federally licensed firearms dealer of your choice, near you, and you go to their location, fill out the federal and state paperwork, have a NICS check run, pay for your new rifle, and take it home.



What exactly is your point, specifically?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I come on here to laugh at the sheeple that are suddenly pro-Kamaka despite never casting a vote for her in their life.

+1 Y’all cain’t take away mah freedom.

Look at the UK where you can be jailed for a social media post.

https://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/news/24516089.sutton-man-61-chanted-who-f-allah-jailed/

A 61 year old man in the UK was just sentenced to 18 months in prison for *pointing* at the police and shouting “who the eff is allah?”.


Does this seem reasonable, DCUM? Because this sounds like the sort of stuff that many people here would support. And I have a real problem with that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I come on here to laugh at the sheeple that are suddenly pro-Kamaka despite never casting a vote for her in their life.

+1 Y’all cain’t take away mah freedom.

Look at the UK where you can be jailed for a social media post.

https://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/news/24516089.sutton-man-61-chanted-who-f-allah-jailed/

A 61 year old man in the UK was just sentenced to 18 months in prison for *pointing* at the police and shouting “who the eff is allah?”.


Does this seem reasonable, DCUM? Because this sounds like the sort of stuff that many people here would support. And I have a real problem with that.

I agree with you - it seems more and more liberals would be ok with this. Apparently referring to transwomen as biological males is hate speech. They would probably love to see me in jail because I stated a scientific fact they think is “hurtful.” And like you, I have a real problem with that.

[Anonymous]

That is one thing my time at DCUM has taught me: how many people, mostly extremely liberal, absolutely adore the idea of thoughtcrimes and jailing people for them. It’s been eye-opening how many extreme left DCUM posters view 1984 as an instruction manual, not a cautionary tale.

It has changed my opinion on hate speech, to an extent. I used to be a very strong supporter of strong hate speech laws, but now I realize there is a large number of people who define hate speech as “all political speech I disagree with.” I am still a supporter of hate speech laws, but think they need to be very narrowly tailored.

What is happening in the UK is absolutely Orwellian right now, and it is a chilling reminder of why Orwell wrote 1984 in the first place. And it could happen here. In fact, I believe a lot of DCUM political posters would be estastic if it did happen here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Be honest..are the political topics and posters' responses on DCUM changing which way you are voting?

Or if undecided, swaying your vote one way or the other?

No

Watching Trump supporters do mental gymnastics to defend the incredibly stupid things he says is depressing

[Anonymous]

I agree with Jeff, "biological man" is really just a dog whistle. I'll see comments online (not here because Jeff thankfully won't allow it to progress to that point) where people will describe transgender girls as "biological men in girl's sports" or "biological men in the girl's bathroom". As though a 14 or 15 year old transgender girl is the same as a 50 year old cisgender man. Calling trans women biological men instead of trans women then complaining about your language being policed makes it pretty clear how you actually feel. Jeff made a really good point, if they're interchangeable to you, then why don't you use the term trans women instead of biological man? I guess the real question is why do you even put on a show and lie about it? The people posting on this board are smart enough to see what you're doing. It's pretty transparent.

Do trans women have a biological advantage in sports? Maybe. I have no idea. I'm not into sports and I've never conducted or reviewed research on trans women in sports. What I do know is that there were no transgender women in the Olympics so the transphobic people had to create a trans woman out of a cis woman to have something to be upset about. Ever since RvW was overturned, the discourse over trans people (and especially trans women) has really blown up. If Lia Thomas had been allowed in the Olympics the Imane Khelif discourse never would have happened because it was manufactured to create more outrage against trans people.

The sports thing just seems to be an easy entry point with a final goal of debating if any transgender person should be allowed to transition regardless of age. I think it's pretty unlikely that all gender transition is ever going to be banned. Places like Maryland and DC would never enforce a federal mandate like that (in the same way that they don't enforce many federal anti-marijuana laws).

- the only trans woman that posts on DCUM

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I come on here to laugh at the sheeple that are suddenly pro-Kamaka despite never casting a vote for her in their life.

+1 Y’all cain’t take away mah freedom.

Look at the UK where you can be jailed for a social media post.

https://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/news/24516089.sutton-man-61-chanted-who-f-allah-jailed/

A 61 year old man in the UK was just sentenced to 18 months in prison for *pointing* at the police and shouting “who the eff is allah?”.


Does this seem reasonable, DCUM? Because this sounds like the sort of stuff that many people here would support. And I have a real problem with that.

I agree with you - it seems more and more liberals would be ok with this. Apparently referring to transwomen as biological males is hate speech. They would probably love to see me in jail because I stated a scientific fact they think is “hurtful.” And like you, I have a real problem with that.

You have rich imagination. Maybe get a hobby - creative writing perhaps?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That is one thing my time at DCUM has taught me: how many people, mostly extremely liberal, absolutely adore the idea of thoughtcrimes and jailing people for them. It’s been eye-opening how many extreme left DCUM posters view 1984 as an instruction manual, not a cautionary tale.

It has changed my opinion on hate speech, to an extent. I used to be a very strong supporter of strong hate speech laws, but now I realize there is a large number of people who define hate speech as “all political speech I disagree with.” I am still a supporter of hate speech laws, but think they need to be very narrowly tailored.

What is happening in the UK is absolutely Orwellian right now, and it is a chilling reminder of why Orwell wrote 1984 in the first place. And it could happen here. In fact, I believe a lot of DCUM political posters would be estastic if it did happen here.

More fiction. You and the PP can form a creative writing club.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I come on here to laugh at the sheeple that are suddenly pro-Kamaka despite never casting a vote for her in their life.

+1 Y’all cain’t take away mah freedom.

Look at the UK where you can be jailed for a social media post.

Look at the US where you can buy an AR-15 online. MAGA.

Which prevents a UK policy