Why are younger men so right wing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The entire premise of this thread ("how can my well adjusted son be Republican?!") is grotesque.

it is just the next step in the evolution , once you have nothing but contempt for other people , you know, those damn deplorables, the US workers that do manual labor, well the next step is to make sure you tell your family "they" are not human.

makes them feel superior.

You’ve just described the Republican attitude towards illegally present immigrants.

Fixed it for you.

So you think that illegally present immigrants are not human.

Got it.

Your statement doesn't make any sense. They are a illegally present, not an immigrant, and somehow that has an impact on their humanity.

What?

Just because we want to close the borders doesn't mean the liberal scum gets to treat them like less than human. We are gently as possible removing them from the country any other human being that doesn't belong here.

“As gently as possible” snatching people off the street and rendering them to an El Salvador torture prison where they are beaten and starved and told they will never see the light of day again. What’s your idea of harsh?

It's not a vacation at the Hilton:
"Multiple news outlets and reports say that a group of House Democrats — Reps. Maxwell Frost (FL), Robert Garcia (CA), Maxine Dexter (OR), and Yassamin Ansari (AZ) — stayed at the Hilton San Salvador during their visit to the capital city of San Salvador on or around April 21, 2025"

That has nothing to do with the question. Stay on topic.

It does. Why do liberals go on vacations to Nazi towns?

How is it a "vacation?" Who goes on vacations with work colleagues? Nobody. They were there to find out more about what's going on with CECOT.

Just pointing out how Democrats don't have any problems traveling to foreign countries and staying at cushy hotels, taking advantage of cheap labor while the governments at the places are considered to be persecuting people.

Remember when Matt Gaetz traveled to El Salvador in 2023 to meet with Bukele? I do.

Remember when Gaetz, Trump Jr., Tucker Carlson, and Rubio traveled to El Salvador last year to attend Bukele’s second inauguration? I doubt they stayed in a youth hostel. No, they probably stayed in similar cushy accommodations, taking advantage of the cheap labor that you’ve suddenly developed such deep concern about.

Speaking of vacationing in Nazi towns (as you were earlier), remember when Republican Madison Cawthorn visited Hitler’s vacation retreat? I do.

Republicans like Bukele though, so it's morally consistent.

On "Hitlers vacation retreat," you do realize its one of the biggest tourist attractions in Germany right? Not exactly a statement to go there.

Oh, so when Republicans go somewhere, it’s just a vacation, but when Democrats go somewhere, it’s a moral statement?

GTFO with your double standards. Nobody’s fooled by your Alice in Wonderland logic.

It's not a double standard. What you're saying would be akin to saying there's no difference between and a cattle rancher and a vegan activist eating a steak. Of course there is. For the rancher, there is no inconsistency between statement and action. For the vegan activist, there is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right now, only 34% of women approve of Trump vs 44% of men, in the latest Economist/Yougov poll. I know polling doesn't tell us everything about how someone will vote in the future, but seems the GOP should worry about losing women? Blaming women in the workplace for the downfall of society doesn't seem like a winning strategy any more than blaming white men was for Democrats.

Anecdotally, also recently saw a couple posts by female MAHA influencers renouncing their red Trump hats because the administration is not following through much on promises to clean up our food, and also just approved new PFAs for use in soil and farming.

You should disown him.

Disown who? I am not OP. I am a mom to a bright and capable daughter, concerned about the GOP's approach to treating women as only suitable for home life, blaming them in the workplace as causing the downfall of society, and not actually doing anything to "Make America Health Again" - in fact the opposite in terms of their approaches which including poisoning our air and farming soil.

The air and soil are already poisoned. That's what MAHA is attempting to reverse. You people are too stupid and combative to comprehend this.

Removing limits on four classes of forever chemicals with known health risks, and extending the compliance deadline for PFOA and PFAS, certainly is a strange way of reversing this. Perhaps your superior brain can explain to us how this makes America healthier.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The entire premise of this thread ("how can my well adjusted son be Republican?!") is grotesque.

it is just the next step in the evolution , once you have nothing but contempt for other people , you know, those damn deplorables, the US workers that do manual labor, well the next step is to make sure you tell your family "they" are not human.

makes them feel superior.

You’ve just described the Republican attitude towards illegally present immigrants.

Fixed it for you.

So you think that illegally present immigrants are not human.

Got it.

Your statement doesn't make any sense. They are a illegally present, not an immigrant, and somehow that has an impact on their humanity.

What?

Just because we want to close the borders doesn't mean the liberal scum gets to treat them like less than human. We are gently as possible removing them from the country any other human being that doesn't belong here.

“As gently as possible” snatching people off the street and rendering them to an El Salvador torture prison where they are beaten and starved and told they will never see the light of day again. What’s your idea of harsh?

It's not a vacation at the Hilton:
"Multiple news outlets and reports say that a group of House Democrats — Reps. Maxwell Frost (FL), Robert Garcia (CA), Maxine Dexter (OR), and Yassamin Ansari (AZ) — stayed at the Hilton San Salvador during their visit to the capital city of San Salvador on or around April 21, 2025"

That has nothing to do with the question. Stay on topic.

It does. Why do liberals go on vacations to Nazi towns?

How is it a "vacation?" Who goes on vacations with work colleagues? Nobody. They were there to find out more about what's going on with CECOT.

Just pointing out how Democrats don't have any problems traveling to foreign countries and staying at cushy hotels, taking advantage of cheap labor while the governments at the places are considered to be persecuting people.

Remember when Matt Gaetz traveled to El Salvador in 2023 to meet with Bukele? I do.

Remember when Gaetz, Trump Jr., Tucker Carlson, and Rubio traveled to El Salvador last year to attend Bukele’s second inauguration? I doubt they stayed in a youth hostel. No, they probably stayed in similar cushy accommodations, taking advantage of the cheap labor that you’ve suddenly developed such deep concern about.

Speaking of vacationing in Nazi towns (as you were earlier), remember when Republican Madison Cawthorn visited Hitler’s vacation retreat? I do.

Republicans like Bukele though, so it's morally consistent.

On "Hitlers vacation retreat," you do realize its one of the biggest tourist attractions in Germany right? Not exactly a statement to go there.

Oh, so when Republicans go somewhere, it’s just a vacation, but when Democrats go somewhere, it’s a moral statement?

GTFO with your double standards. Nobody’s fooled by your Alice in Wonderland logic.

It's not a double standard. What you're saying would be akin to saying there's no difference between and a cattle rancher and a vegan activist eating a steak. Of course there is. For the rancher, there is no inconsistency between statement and action. For the vegan activist, there is.

You’re trying to claim that Republicans have no moral standards, thus they are exempt from criticism? What a weird argument. Nobody should be voting for them, in that case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have yet to see one compelling argument that isn't about white men whining about no longer being handed everything when they want it (as often), or rooted in hatred/mistrust of women.

Okay, run with that and keep losing presidential elections for eternity.

Oh noes, you feel the world is against you so you want to vote for the grifter billionaires who don't give a shit about you? See how that helps you and your family, kids, etc.

I’m a Harris-voting, lifelong Democrat, you moron. I am just not sealed inside the deep blue bubble like you are. I want to win the presidential election again some day, and I see nobody on the horizon who even comes close to being a realistic candidate.

For context, I accurately called Trump’s wins months before the election each time, as well as Biden’s. I’ve correctly predicted each presidential election since I started paying attention (Obama). I tried to warn people here that Trump was going to win and got a lot of posts back about how wrong I was. 🤷‍♀️

Also don’t come back about stupid special elections or whatever. They are irrelevant to national voting patterns. The Democrats will win the midterms but at this rate will get trounced again in the presidential election unless a dark horse candidate emerges. And a lot of that has to do with the denialism on display in this thread.

If you’re hoping for a white male candidate who won’t scare away the racists and who is good at insulting people and pandering to young men with shallow lies, those are called Republicans.

Why are we getting lectures about The Democrats Hate Young Men And Have Lost Them Forever (with zero evidence to back that up, other than “sometimes they talk about issues that don’t center me” and “why did Harvard reject me and why do I not have an upper management job at age 25”), and no corresponding lectures about The Republicans Hate Women And Will Never Win Another Election Because Of That? Republicans actually back that up with policy. Women are bleeding out in hospital parking lots. There’s a huge push to get women out of the military, jobs, and academia, and back in the kitchen having babies. There’s talk of removing their right to vote, and going back to the days when women couldn’t open bank accounts or have credit cards in their name. Now THAT’S real hatred. “Oh no, the acronym BIPOC exists” is not.

There are so many threads devoted to Winning Back Young Men for Democrats, and zero devoted to Winning Back Young Women for Republicans. That should tell you what the real problem is. Republicans don’t give a sh*t about women, except as baby vessels. They don’t need to. They already have a structural advantage baked in to the Electoral College. They have the Supreme Court locked down for a generation. They have an enormous billionaire-backed media megaphone pumping out lies and distortions to the public 24/7. They don’t need anyone’s vote except for straight white evangelical men, and that is exactly who the country is being run by and for. Spare us the sob stories about underrepresentation.

You are correct that no Republican cares about winning women but your reasoning about why is wrong and your understanding of the political landscape is wrong. No Republican cares about winning women to the Republicans because the Democrats are pushing women to the Republicans on their own. The Republicans don’t have to do any work to get those votes.

It is also interesting to me that you, like most of the other sealed blue bubble posters in this thread, are focused on straight white males only, when the data you should really be worried about is the shift of men who aren’t straight and/or white. That is the trend that is unfortunately and likely going to keep Democrats out of the presidential office for many years, unless sealed blue bubble Democrats like you step out of your bubble.

But unfortunately your political ideologies won’t allow you to recognize that electoral reality or speak openly about it, so you are back to shaking your fist at straight white men. And you are reflective of the Democratic Party apparatus and control. Which is why Democrats remain more unpopular than Trump even given how unpopular Trump is. You simply cannot face electoral reality because facing reality unmoors your self-identity too much. Your self-identity is grounded in a political philosophy that insists on a ranked hierarchy of identities, and recognizing the shift of men who are not straight and/or white to the Republicans would require you to take a hit to that self-identity. That’s too much for you to handle, and same with other identitarian Democrats (who unfortunately control the party), so the Democrats and you would rather languish as being less popular than Trump and accept never winning the presidential election again.

None of this is accurate. It’s not backed up by any real world facts.

For example, your assertion that Democrats are “pushing” women to the Republican party is untrue. Every recent poll shows that young women are becoming more liberal, not less. There’s a large gender gap. It stands to reason, for the reasons outlined above (Dobbs, Project 2025, the general embrace of misogyny on the right). Your statement comes across as wishful thinking, maybe because you can’t understand how any woman in her right mind could vote for Democrats. Look at the party platforms and how each party speaks about women, and it might make sense. You can’t say this is what’s driving men to vote a certain way, but then reach the opposite conclusion for women.

Another example: your armchair-psychology statement that “Your self-identity is grounded in a political philosophy that insists on a ranked hierarchy of identities” is completely wrong. What you’re describing is an authoritarian mindset, which is more commonly found on the right. Democrats don’t like hierarchies. They don’t like kings, in case you hadn’t noticed from all the protests. That’s what young men are complaining about. They want the old hierarchy restored, with them on top.

By the way, the latest election results show men shifting away from the GOP. There was a +40 shift to Dems in New York. 6 in 10 voted for the Dem candidate in Virginia. Affordability is a huge concern for gen Z, something that Trump has failed to address. And gay men still break overwhelmingly Democratic 83-17, not surprisingly since the GOP has historically demonstrated hostility to LGBTQ+ issues. There isn’t a mass defection happening.

For someone who accuses others of being in a bubble, you have a very poor grasp of what’s happening in the real world and what motivates people.

I think they said 30% of Trump voters also voted for Mamdani.

I think what this actually says is that there is a decent %age of the population that doesn't believe any political party cares about them, and they are drawn to populist/socialist platforms...and they don't actually care all that much as to the political party, but rather are heavily swayed by the literal person espousing the position.

There is a big disconnect on both sides between what they tell voters, and what they actually do. With all the talk of trad wives and returning to the 1950s, MAGA can’t make that a practical possibility unless they also guarantee that households can function on one income. That’s not gonna happen. But it’s an attractive fantasy that they can dangle to attract male votes.

It's already happening. Over 400,000 mothers dropped from the workforce in Q1 and Q2, which is the steepest decline in 40 years. https://thecareboard.ku.edu/news/article/us-sees-steepest-decline-of-mothers-of-young-children-in-the-workforce-in-40-years-study-finds. MAGA didn't have to do anything. Women are the ones saying they've had enough. Alot of young couples are deciding to homeschool and make it work. And I applaud them. Children need their mothers at home and women want to be there. We have seen what happens to society when we start deviating from ingrained biological roles that has kept humanity together for thousands of years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The entire premise of this thread ("how can my well adjusted son be Republican?!") is grotesque.

it is just the next step in the evolution , once you have nothing but contempt for other people , you know, those damn deplorables, the US workers that do manual labor, well the next step is to make sure you tell your family "they" are not human.

makes them feel superior.

You’ve just described the Republican attitude towards illegally present immigrants.

Fixed it for you.

So you think that illegally present immigrants are not human.

Got it.

Your statement doesn't make any sense. They are a illegally present, not an immigrant, and somehow that has an impact on their humanity.

What?

Just because we want to close the borders doesn't mean the liberal scum gets to treat them like less than human. We are gently as possible removing them from the country any other human being that doesn't belong here.

“As gently as possible” snatching people off the street and rendering them to an El Salvador torture prison where they are beaten and starved and told they will never see the light of day again. What’s your idea of harsh?

It's not a vacation at the Hilton:
"Multiple news outlets and reports say that a group of House Democrats — Reps. Maxwell Frost (FL), Robert Garcia (CA), Maxine Dexter (OR), and Yassamin Ansari (AZ) — stayed at the Hilton San Salvador during their visit to the capital city of San Salvador on or around April 21, 2025"

That has nothing to do with the question. Stay on topic.

It does. Why do liberals go on vacations to Nazi towns?

How is it a "vacation?" Who goes on vacations with work colleagues? Nobody. They were there to find out more about what's going on with CECOT.

Just pointing out how Democrats don't have any problems traveling to foreign countries and staying at cushy hotels, taking advantage of cheap labor while the governments at the places are considered to be persecuting people.

Remember when Matt Gaetz traveled to El Salvador in 2023 to meet with Bukele? I do.

Remember when Gaetz, Trump Jr., Tucker Carlson, and Rubio traveled to El Salvador last year to attend Bukele’s second inauguration? I doubt they stayed in a youth hostel. No, they probably stayed in similar cushy accommodations, taking advantage of the cheap labor that you’ve suddenly developed such deep concern about.

Speaking of vacationing in Nazi towns (as you were earlier), remember when Republican Madison Cawthorn visited Hitler’s vacation retreat? I do.

Republicans like Bukele though, so it's morally consistent.

On "Hitlers vacation retreat," you do realize its one of the biggest tourist attractions in Germany right? Not exactly a statement to go there.

Oh, so when Republicans go somewhere, it’s just a vacation, but when Democrats go somewhere, it’s a moral statement?

GTFO with your double standards. Nobody’s fooled by your Alice in Wonderland logic.

It's not a double standard. What you're saying would be akin to saying there's no difference between and a cattle rancher and a vegan activist eating a steak. Of course there is. For the rancher, there is no inconsistency between statement and action. For the vegan activist, there is.

You’re trying to claim that Republicans have no moral standards, thus they are exempt from criticism? What a weird argument. Nobody should be voting for them, in that case.

It's just that Democrats say places in Central America are horrible and we have to take their asylees, but we're on good terms with their governments, "Try the ceviche!".

I get international law is only considered with protections of individuals, though it seems like a pretty big flaw in the system. I mean claiming an asylum means there isn't anywhere in the country that is safe for them, but there they are coconut diplomacy eating the ceviche.

Know how many Indians try to claim asylum. Oh, but got skills come on over sit next John the Sysadmin. Can I claim asylum from Indians in the US. They are persecuting me in the tech sector.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The entire premise of this thread ("how can my well adjusted son be Republican?!") is grotesque.

it is just the next step in the evolution , once you have nothing but contempt for other people , you know, those damn deplorables, the US workers that do manual labor, well the next step is to make sure you tell your family "they" are not human.

makes them feel superior.

You’ve just described the Republican attitude towards illegally present immigrants.

Fixed it for you.

So you think that illegally present immigrants are not human.

Got it.

Your statement doesn't make any sense. They are a illegally present, not an immigrant, and somehow that has an impact on their humanity.

What?

Just because we want to close the borders doesn't mean the liberal scum gets to treat them like less than human. We are gently as possible removing them from the country any other human being that doesn't belong here.

“As gently as possible” snatching people off the street and rendering them to an El Salvador torture prison where they are beaten and starved and told they will never see the light of day again. What’s your idea of harsh?

It's not a vacation at the Hilton:
"Multiple news outlets and reports say that a group of House Democrats — Reps. Maxwell Frost (FL), Robert Garcia (CA), Maxine Dexter (OR), and Yassamin Ansari (AZ) — stayed at the Hilton San Salvador during their visit to the capital city of San Salvador on or around April 21, 2025"

That has nothing to do with the question. Stay on topic.

It does. Why do liberals go on vacations to Nazi towns?

How is it a "vacation?" Who goes on vacations with work colleagues? Nobody. They were there to find out more about what's going on with CECOT.

Just pointing out how Democrats don't have any problems traveling to foreign countries and staying at cushy hotels, taking advantage of cheap labor while the governments at the places are considered to be persecuting people.

Remember when Matt Gaetz traveled to El Salvador in 2023 to meet with Bukele? I do.

Remember when Gaetz, Trump Jr., Tucker Carlson, and Rubio traveled to El Salvador last year to attend Bukele’s second inauguration? I doubt they stayed in a youth hostel. No, they probably stayed in similar cushy accommodations, taking advantage of the cheap labor that you’ve suddenly developed such deep concern about.

Speaking of vacationing in Nazi towns (as you were earlier), remember when Republican Madison Cawthorn visited Hitler’s vacation retreat? I do.

Republicans like Bukele though, so it's morally consistent.

On "Hitlers vacation retreat," you do realize its one of the biggest tourist attractions in Germany right? Not exactly a statement to go there.

Oh, so when Republicans go somewhere, it’s just a vacation, but when Democrats go somewhere, it’s a moral statement?

GTFO with your double standards. Nobody’s fooled by your Alice in Wonderland logic.

It's not a double standard. What you're saying would be akin to saying there's no difference between and a cattle rancher and a vegan activist eating a steak. Of course there is. For the rancher, there is no inconsistency between statement and action. For the vegan activist, there is.

You’re trying to claim that Republicans have no moral standards, thus they are exempt from criticism? What a weird argument. Nobody should be voting for them, in that case.

It's just that Democrats say places in Central America are horrible and we have to take their asylees, but we're on good terms with their governments, "Try the ceviche!".

I get international law is only considered with protections of individuals, though it seems like a pretty big flaw in the system. I mean claiming an asylum means there isn't anywhere in the country that is safe for them, but there they are coconut diplomacy eating the ceviche.

Know how many Indians try to claim asylum. Oh, but got skills come on over sit next John the Sysadmin. Can I claim asylum from Indians in the US. They are persecuting me in the tech sector.

I don’t quite get the obsession with ceviche, or why it’s inconsistent to accept asylum seekers while working on diplomacy with their governments. We’re supposed to shun them and allow the human rights abuses to go on unchecked and possibly spread to other countries? That doesn’t sound very smart.

As for tech workers, most are just over here on visas because companies want cheap workers. They regard American workers as too expensive. Take it up with the global economy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have yet to see one compelling argument that isn't about white men whining about no longer being handed everything when they want it (as often), or rooted in hatred/mistrust of women.

Okay, run with that and keep losing presidential elections for eternity.

Oh noes, you feel the world is against you so you want to vote for the grifter billionaires who don't give a shit about you? See how that helps you and your family, kids, etc.

I’m a Harris-voting, lifelong Democrat, you moron. I am just not sealed inside the deep blue bubble like you are. I want to win the presidential election again some day, and I see nobody on the horizon who even comes close to being a realistic candidate.

For context, I accurately called Trump’s wins months before the election each time, as well as Biden’s. I’ve correctly predicted each presidential election since I started paying attention (Obama). I tried to warn people here that Trump was going to win and got a lot of posts back about how wrong I was. 🤷‍♀️

Also don’t come back about stupid special elections or whatever. They are irrelevant to national voting patterns. The Democrats will win the midterms but at this rate will get trounced again in the presidential election unless a dark horse candidate emerges. And a lot of that has to do with the denialism on display in this thread.

If you’re hoping for a white male candidate who won’t scare away the racists and who is good at insulting people and pandering to young men with shallow lies, those are called Republicans.

Why are we getting lectures about The Democrats Hate Young Men And Have Lost Them Forever (with zero evidence to back that up, other than “sometimes they talk about issues that don’t center me” and “why did Harvard reject me and why do I not have an upper management job at age 25”), and no corresponding lectures about The Republicans Hate Women And Will Never Win Another Election Because Of That? Republicans actually back that up with policy. Women are bleeding out in hospital parking lots. There’s a huge push to get women out of the military, jobs, and academia, and back in the kitchen having babies. There’s talk of removing their right to vote, and going back to the days when women couldn’t open bank accounts or have credit cards in their name. Now THAT’S real hatred. “Oh no, the acronym BIPOC exists” is not.

There are so many threads devoted to Winning Back Young Men for Democrats, and zero devoted to Winning Back Young Women for Republicans. That should tell you what the real problem is. Republicans don’t give a sh*t about women, except as baby vessels. They don’t need to. They already have a structural advantage baked in to the Electoral College. They have the Supreme Court locked down for a generation. They have an enormous billionaire-backed media megaphone pumping out lies and distortions to the public 24/7. They don’t need anyone’s vote except for straight white evangelical men, and that is exactly who the country is being run by and for. Spare us the sob stories about underrepresentation.

You are correct that no Republican cares about winning women but your reasoning about why is wrong and your understanding of the political landscape is wrong. No Republican cares about winning women to the Republicans because the Democrats are pushing women to the Republicans on their own. The Republicans don’t have to do any work to get those votes.

It is also interesting to me that you, like most of the other sealed blue bubble posters in this thread, are focused on straight white males only, when the data you should really be worried about is the shift of men who aren’t straight and/or white. That is the trend that is unfortunately and likely going to keep Democrats out of the presidential office for many years, unless sealed blue bubble Democrats like you step out of your bubble.

But unfortunately your political ideologies won’t allow you to recognize that electoral reality or speak openly about it, so you are back to shaking your fist at straight white men. And you are reflective of the Democratic Party apparatus and control. Which is why Democrats remain more unpopular than Trump even given how unpopular Trump is. You simply cannot face electoral reality because facing reality unmoors your self-identity too much. Your self-identity is grounded in a political philosophy that insists on a ranked hierarchy of identities, and recognizing the shift of men who are not straight and/or white to the Republicans would require you to take a hit to that self-identity. That’s too much for you to handle, and same with other identitarian Democrats (who unfortunately control the party), so the Democrats and you would rather languish as being less popular than Trump and accept never winning the presidential election again.

None of this is accurate. It’s not backed up by any real world facts.

For example, your assertion that Democrats are “pushing” women to the Republican party is untrue. Every recent poll shows that young women are becoming more liberal, not less. There’s a large gender gap. It stands to reason, for the reasons outlined above (Dobbs, Project 2025, the general embrace of misogyny on the right). Your statement comes across as wishful thinking, maybe because you can’t understand how any woman in her right mind could vote for Democrats. Look at the party platforms and how each party speaks about women, and it might make sense. You can’t say this is what’s driving men to vote a certain way, but then reach the opposite conclusion for women.

Another example: your armchair-psychology statement that “Your self-identity is grounded in a political philosophy that insists on a ranked hierarchy of identities” is completely wrong. What you’re describing is an authoritarian mindset, which is more commonly found on the right. Democrats don’t like hierarchies. They don’t like kings, in case you hadn’t noticed from all the protests. That’s what young men are complaining about. They want the old hierarchy restored, with them on top.

By the way, the latest election results show men shifting away from the GOP. There was a +40 shift to Dems in New York. 6 in 10 voted for the Dem candidate in Virginia. Affordability is a huge concern for gen Z, something that Trump has failed to address. And gay men still break overwhelmingly Democratic 83-17, not surprisingly since the GOP has historically demonstrated hostility to LGBTQ+ issues. There isn’t a mass defection happening.

For someone who accuses others of being in a bubble, you have a very poor grasp of what’s happening in the real world and what motivates people.

I think they said 30% of Trump voters also voted for Mamdani.

I think what this actually says is that there is a decent %age of the population that doesn't believe any political party cares about them, and they are drawn to populist/socialist platforms...and they don't actually care all that much as to the political party, but rather are heavily swayed by the literal person espousing the position.

There is a big disconnect on both sides between what they tell voters, and what they actually do. With all the talk of trad wives and returning to the 1950s, MAGA can’t make that a practical possibility unless they also guarantee that households can function on one income. That’s not gonna happen. But it’s an attractive fantasy that they can dangle to attract male votes.

It's already happening. Over 400,000 mothers dropped from the workforce in Q1 and Q2, which is the steepest decline in 40 years. https://thecareboard.ku.edu/news/article/us-sees-steepest-decline-of-mothers-of-young-children-in-the-workforce-in-40-years-study-finds. MAGA didn't have to do anything. Women are the ones saying they've had enough. Alot of young couples are deciding to homeschool and make it work. And I applaud them. Children need their mothers at home and women want to be there. We have seen what happens to society when we start deviating from ingrained biological roles that has kept humanity together for thousands of years.

Speak for yourself, returning to work helped pull me out of postpartum depression years ago and I have two happy, healthy kids who are thriving, kind, sweet, and intelligent. I love being a mom and also love my job.

Maybe stil dictating what women should do and let individual families decide? If women left the workforce because they preferred to be stay at home moms, good for them! However, if you want to dictate how "all" women should live, you will lose my vote.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have yet to see one compelling argument that isn't about white men whining about no longer being handed everything when they want it (as often), or rooted in hatred/mistrust of women.

Okay, run with that and keep losing presidential elections for eternity.

Oh noes, you feel the world is against you so you want to vote for the grifter billionaires who don't give a shit about you? See how that helps you and your family, kids, etc.

I’m a Harris-voting, lifelong Democrat, you moron. I am just not sealed inside the deep blue bubble like you are. I want to win the presidential election again some day, and I see nobody on the horizon who even comes close to being a realistic candidate.

For context, I accurately called Trump’s wins months before the election each time, as well as Biden’s. I’ve correctly predicted each presidential election since I started paying attention (Obama). I tried to warn people here that Trump was going to win and got a lot of posts back about how wrong I was. 🤷‍♀️

Also don’t come back about stupid special elections or whatever. They are irrelevant to national voting patterns. The Democrats will win the midterms but at this rate will get trounced again in the presidential election unless a dark horse candidate emerges. And a lot of that has to do with the denialism on display in this thread.

If you’re hoping for a white male candidate who won’t scare away the racists and who is good at insulting people and pandering to young men with shallow lies, those are called Republicans.

Why are we getting lectures about The Democrats Hate Young Men And Have Lost Them Forever (with zero evidence to back that up, other than “sometimes they talk about issues that don’t center me” and “why did Harvard reject me and why do I not have an upper management job at age 25”), and no corresponding lectures about The Republicans Hate Women And Will Never Win Another Election Because Of That? Republicans actually back that up with policy. Women are bleeding out in hospital parking lots. There’s a huge push to get women out of the military, jobs, and academia, and back in the kitchen having babies. There’s talk of removing their right to vote, and going back to the days when women couldn’t open bank accounts or have credit cards in their name. Now THAT’S real hatred. “Oh no, the acronym BIPOC exists” is not.

There are so many threads devoted to Winning Back Young Men for Democrats, and zero devoted to Winning Back Young Women for Republicans. That should tell you what the real problem is. Republicans don’t give a sh*t about women, except as baby vessels. They don’t need to. They already have a structural advantage baked in to the Electoral College. They have the Supreme Court locked down for a generation. They have an enormous billionaire-backed media megaphone pumping out lies and distortions to the public 24/7. They don’t need anyone’s vote except for straight white evangelical men, and that is exactly who the country is being run by and for. Spare us the sob stories about underrepresentation.

You are correct that no Republican cares about winning women but your reasoning about why is wrong and your understanding of the political landscape is wrong. No Republican cares about winning women to the Republicans because the Democrats are pushing women to the Republicans on their own. The Republicans don’t have to do any work to get those votes.

It is also interesting to me that you, like most of the other sealed blue bubble posters in this thread, are focused on straight white males only, when the data you should really be worried about is the shift of men who aren’t straight and/or white. That is the trend that is unfortunately and likely going to keep Democrats out of the presidential office for many years, unless sealed blue bubble Democrats like you step out of your bubble.

But unfortunately your political ideologies won’t allow you to recognize that electoral reality or speak openly about it, so you are back to shaking your fist at straight white men. And you are reflective of the Democratic Party apparatus and control. Which is why Democrats remain more unpopular than Trump even given how unpopular Trump is. You simply cannot face electoral reality because facing reality unmoors your self-identity too much. Your self-identity is grounded in a political philosophy that insists on a ranked hierarchy of identities, and recognizing the shift of men who are not straight and/or white to the Republicans would require you to take a hit to that self-identity. That’s too much for you to handle, and same with other identitarian Democrats (who unfortunately control the party), so the Democrats and you would rather languish as being less popular than Trump and accept never winning the presidential election again.

None of this is accurate. It’s not backed up by any real world facts.

For example, your assertion that Democrats are “pushing” women to the Republican party is untrue. Every recent poll shows that young women are becoming more liberal, not less. There’s a large gender gap. It stands to reason, for the reasons outlined above (Dobbs, Project 2025, the general embrace of misogyny on the right). Your statement comes across as wishful thinking, maybe because you can’t understand how any woman in her right mind could vote for Democrats. Look at the party platforms and how each party speaks about women, and it might make sense. You can’t say this is what’s driving men to vote a certain way, but then reach the opposite conclusion for women.

Another example: your armchair-psychology statement that “Your self-identity is grounded in a political philosophy that insists on a ranked hierarchy of identities” is completely wrong. What you’re describing is an authoritarian mindset, which is more commonly found on the right. Democrats don’t like hierarchies. They don’t like kings, in case you hadn’t noticed from all the protests. That’s what young men are complaining about. They want the old hierarchy restored, with them on top.

By the way, the latest election results show men shifting away from the GOP. There was a +40 shift to Dems in New York. 6 in 10 voted for the Dem candidate in Virginia. Affordability is a huge concern for gen Z, something that Trump has failed to address. And gay men still break overwhelmingly Democratic 83-17, not surprisingly since the GOP has historically demonstrated hostility to LGBTQ+ issues. There isn’t a mass defection happening.

For someone who accuses others of being in a bubble, you have a very poor grasp of what’s happening in the real world and what motivates people.

Shrug. Fine, then, there no need to worry. I was obviously totally wrong when I was begging people like you to see that Trump was going to win in spring of 2016 and again in spring of 2024. You were clearly right and I was wrong.

I could go point by point and list out the fallacies in your response, but what is the point? Whenever I have done this with true believers like you before on DCUM (particularly in the context of the presidential election), I’m just met with denialism and anger.

I do have to say that referencing the nearly all white, elderly, painfully cringe protesters is a cute touch though. I’m sure they totally represent what Gen Z voters think. You definitely have your hand on the pulse!

Democrats have nothing to worry about, then! 👍

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have yet to see one compelling argument that isn't about white men whining about no longer being handed everything when they want it (as often), or rooted in hatred/mistrust of women.

Okay, run with that and keep losing presidential elections for eternity.

Oh noes, you feel the world is against you so you want to vote for the grifter billionaires who don't give a shit about you? See how that helps you and your family, kids, etc.

I’m a Harris-voting, lifelong Democrat, you moron. I am just not sealed inside the deep blue bubble like you are. I want to win the presidential election again some day, and I see nobody on the horizon who even comes close to being a realistic candidate.

For context, I accurately called Trump’s wins months before the election each time, as well as Biden’s. I’ve correctly predicted each presidential election since I started paying attention (Obama). I tried to warn people here that Trump was going to win and got a lot of posts back about how wrong I was. 🤷‍♀️

Also don’t come back about stupid special elections or whatever. They are irrelevant to national voting patterns. The Democrats will win the midterms but at this rate will get trounced again in the presidential election unless a dark horse candidate emerges. And a lot of that has to do with the denialism on display in this thread.

If you’re hoping for a white male candidate who won’t scare away the racists and who is good at insulting people and pandering to young men with shallow lies, those are called Republicans.

Why are we getting lectures about The Democrats Hate Young Men And Have Lost Them Forever (with zero evidence to back that up, other than “sometimes they talk about issues that don’t center me” and “why did Harvard reject me and why do I not have an upper management job at age 25”), and no corresponding lectures about The Republicans Hate Women And Will Never Win Another Election Because Of That? Republicans actually back that up with policy. Women are bleeding out in hospital parking lots. There’s a huge push to get women out of the military, jobs, and academia, and back in the kitchen having babies. There’s talk of removing their right to vote, and going back to the days when women couldn’t open bank accounts or have credit cards in their name. Now THAT’S real hatred. “Oh no, the acronym BIPOC exists” is not.

There are so many threads devoted to Winning Back Young Men for Democrats, and zero devoted to Winning Back Young Women for Republicans. That should tell you what the real problem is. Republicans don’t give a sh*t about women, except as baby vessels. They don’t need to. They already have a structural advantage baked in to the Electoral College. They have the Supreme Court locked down for a generation. They have an enormous billionaire-backed media megaphone pumping out lies and distortions to the public 24/7. They don’t need anyone’s vote except for straight white evangelical men, and that is exactly who the country is being run by and for. Spare us the sob stories about underrepresentation.

You are correct that no Republican cares about winning women but your reasoning about why is wrong and your understanding of the political landscape is wrong. No Republican cares about winning women to the Republicans because the Democrats are pushing women to the Republicans on their own. The Republicans don’t have to do any work to get those votes.

It is also interesting to me that you, like most of the other sealed blue bubble posters in this thread, are focused on straight white males only, when the data you should really be worried about is the shift of men who aren’t straight and/or white. That is the trend that is unfortunately and likely going to keep Democrats out of the presidential office for many years, unless sealed blue bubble Democrats like you step out of your bubble.

But unfortunately your political ideologies won’t allow you to recognize that electoral reality or speak openly about it, so you are back to shaking your fist at straight white men. And you are reflective of the Democratic Party apparatus and control. Which is why Democrats remain more unpopular than Trump even given how unpopular Trump is. You simply cannot face electoral reality because facing reality unmoors your self-identity too much. Your self-identity is grounded in a political philosophy that insists on a ranked hierarchy of identities, and recognizing the shift of men who are not straight and/or white to the Republicans would require you to take a hit to that self-identity. That’s too much for you to handle, and same with other identitarian Democrats (who unfortunately control the party), so the Democrats and you would rather languish as being less popular than Trump and accept never winning the presidential election again.

None of this is accurate. It’s not backed up by any real world facts.

For example, your assertion that Democrats are “pushing” women to the Republican party is untrue. Every recent poll shows that young women are becoming more liberal, not less. There’s a large gender gap. It stands to reason, for the reasons outlined above (Dobbs, Project 2025, the general embrace of misogyny on the right). Your statement comes across as wishful thinking, maybe because you can’t understand how any woman in her right mind could vote for Democrats. Look at the party platforms and how each party speaks about women, and it might make sense. You can’t say this is what’s driving men to vote a certain way, but then reach the opposite conclusion for women.

Another example: your armchair-psychology statement that “Your self-identity is grounded in a political philosophy that insists on a ranked hierarchy of identities” is completely wrong. What you’re describing is an authoritarian mindset, which is more commonly found on the right. Democrats don’t like hierarchies. They don’t like kings, in case you hadn’t noticed from all the protests. That’s what young men are complaining about. They want the old hierarchy restored, with them on top.

By the way, the latest election results show men shifting away from the GOP. There was a +40 shift to Dems in New York. 6 in 10 voted for the Dem candidate in Virginia. Affordability is a huge concern for gen Z, something that Trump has failed to address. And gay men still break overwhelmingly Democratic 83-17, not surprisingly since the GOP has historically demonstrated hostility to LGBTQ+ issues. There isn’t a mass defection happening.

For someone who accuses others of being in a bubble, you have a very poor grasp of what’s happening in the real world and what motivates people.

I think they said 30% of Trump voters also voted for Mamdani.

I think what this actually says is that there is a decent %age of the population that doesn't believe any political party cares about them, and they are drawn to populist/socialist platforms...and they don't actually care all that much as to the political party, but rather are heavily swayed by the literal person espousing the position.

There is a big disconnect on both sides between what they tell voters, and what they actually do. With all the talk of trad wives and returning to the 1950s, MAGA can’t make that a practical possibility unless they also guarantee that households can function on one income. That’s not gonna happen. But it’s an attractive fantasy that they can dangle to attract male votes.

It's already happening. Over 400,000 mothers dropped from the workforce in Q1 and Q2, which is the steepest decline in 40 years. https://thecareboard.ku.edu/news/article/us-sees-steepest-decline-of-mothers-of-young-children-in-the-workforce-in-40-years-study-finds. MAGA didn't have to do anything. Women are the ones saying they've had enough. Alot of young couples are deciding to homeschool and make it work. And I applaud them. Children need their mothers at home and women want to be there. We have seen what happens to society when we start deviating from ingrained biological roles that has kept humanity together for thousands of years.

Speak for yourself, returning to work helped pull me out of postpartum depression years ago and I have two happy, healthy kids who are thriving, kind, sweet, and intelligent. I love being a mom and also love my job.

Maybe stil dictating what women should do and let individual families decide? If women left the workforce because they preferred to be stay at home moms, good for them! However, if you want to dictate how "all" women should live, you will lose my vote.

Meant to write "stop"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right now, only 34% of women approve of Trump vs 44% of men, in the latest Economist/Yougov poll. I know polling doesn't tell us everything about how someone will vote in the future, but seems the GOP should worry about losing women? Blaming women in the workplace for the downfall of society doesn't seem like a winning strategy any more than blaming white men was for Democrats.

Anecdotally, also recently saw a couple posts by female MAHA influencers renouncing their red Trump hats because the administration is not following through much on promises to clean up our food, and also just approved new PFAs for use in soil and farming.

That’s interesting. Seems like this is something a Dem candidate could run on. Food safety is one of those rare issues that appeals to both sides.

Democrats aren't very good at it though. They don't regulate Chinese restaurants because they might be seen as being racist.

Uh no, all restaurants are subject to the same health code law and audits, but way to show you want to intentionally deflect from the real issues being raised.

I'm pretty sure a number have sanitation issues.

I am pretty sure you cannot stay on topic or are intentionally deflecting so will bring us back to the point made originally in case you can actually stay on topic. Paid astroturfer here to distract from the GOP failing in their treatment of women?

"Right now, only 34% of women approve of Trump vs 44% of men, in the latest Economist/Yougov poll. I know polling doesn't tell us everything about how someone will vote in the future, but seems the GOP should worry about losing women? Blaming women in the workplace for the downfall of society doesn't seem like a winning strategy any more than blaming white men was for Democrats.

Anecdotally, also recently saw a couple posts by female MAHA influencers renouncing their red Trump hats because the administration is not following through much on promises to clean up our food, and also just approved new PFAs for use in soil and farming"

Yep. Women’s votes are just as important as men’s, and they’re more motivated than ever to get out and vote. Trump benefitted from attracting a lot of disaffected Gamergate types who liked his crude style and the nihilistic promise of burning it all to the ground, but once Trump is gone, the cult of personality goes with him. Incumbency will be a liability for Vance with swing voters if the economy doesn’t improve (along with the “passing as a regular human being” problem whenever he tries to interact with the public). He certainly isn’t going to persuade large numbers of women to switch parties.

Vance doesn’t need them to switch. He just needs to persuade them not to vote at all.

This is also true of the Republicans in the other direction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The entire premise of this thread ("how can my well adjusted son be Republican?!") is grotesque.

it is just the next step in the evolution , once you have nothing but contempt for other people , you know, those damn deplorables, the US workers that do manual labor, well the next step is to make sure you tell your family "they" are not human.

makes them feel superior.

You’ve just described the Republican attitude towards illegally present immigrants.

Fixed it for you.

So you think that illegally present immigrants are not human.

Got it.

Your statement doesn't make any sense. They are a illegally present, not an immigrant, and somehow that has an impact on their humanity.

What?

Just because we want to close the borders doesn't mean the liberal scum gets to treat them like less than human. We are gently as possible removing them from the country any other human being that doesn't belong here.

“As gently as possible” snatching people off the street and rendering them to an El Salvador torture prison where they are beaten and starved and told they will never see the light of day again. What’s your idea of harsh?

It's not a vacation at the Hilton:
"Multiple news outlets and reports say that a group of House Democrats — Reps. Maxwell Frost (FL), Robert Garcia (CA), Maxine Dexter (OR), and Yassamin Ansari (AZ) — stayed at the Hilton San Salvador during their visit to the capital city of San Salvador on or around April 21, 2025"

That has nothing to do with the question. Stay on topic.

It does. Why do liberals go on vacations to Nazi towns?

How is it a "vacation?" Who goes on vacations with work colleagues? Nobody. They were there to find out more about what's going on with CECOT.

Just pointing out how Democrats don't have any problems traveling to foreign countries and staying at cushy hotels, taking advantage of cheap labor while the governments at the places are considered to be persecuting people.

Remember when Matt Gaetz traveled to El Salvador in 2023 to meet with Bukele? I do.

Remember when Gaetz, Trump Jr., Tucker Carlson, and Rubio traveled to El Salvador last year to attend Bukele’s second inauguration? I doubt they stayed in a youth hostel. No, they probably stayed in similar cushy accommodations, taking advantage of the cheap labor that you’ve suddenly developed such deep concern about.

Speaking of vacationing in Nazi towns (as you were earlier), remember when Republican Madison Cawthorn visited Hitler’s vacation retreat? I do.

Republicans like Bukele though, so it's morally consistent.

On "Hitlers vacation retreat," you do realize its one of the biggest tourist attractions in Germany right? Not exactly a statement to go there.

Oh, so when Republicans go somewhere, it’s just a vacation, but when Democrats go somewhere, it’s a moral statement?

GTFO with your double standards. Nobody’s fooled by your Alice in Wonderland logic.

It's not a double standard. What you're saying would be akin to saying there's no difference between and a cattle rancher and a vegan activist eating a steak. Of course there is. For the rancher, there is no inconsistency between statement and action. For the vegan activist, there is.

You’re trying to claim that Republicans have no moral standards, thus they are exempt from criticism? What a weird argument. Nobody should be voting for them, in that case.

You're being really tedious so I will explain increase more but that's it. Republicans affirmatively like and support Bukele. He fits with their image of effective government because he took El Salvador from being the most dangerous nation in Latin America to the safest. Liberals hate him. This really isn't difficult, but you're being difficult for no clear reason. Go bug your husband now.

[Anonymous]

A lot of those mothers were forced out of the workforce. They didn’t voluntarily drop. Return to office mandates, less flexibility around care, and the elimination of DEI and ERG programs were big factors.

People who think “oh yes, this is great” either haven’t fully thought through the consequences, or they don’t care about women. What happens to these women if/when they want to return to the workforce, but now their skills are outdated and there’s a 15 year gap on their resume? What happens if their husband dies or leaves them? What happens to them in retirement? What happens to the economy when half of the labor and talent pool is gone?

I’m not saying it’s a bad thing to stay home with kids (it’s wonderful if inclination and financial circumstances allow), but it should be a choice, not something forced on women because men don’t want to compete with them. “Ingrained biological roles” is just a subset of the Appeal to Nature fallacy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A lot of those mothers were forced out of the workforce. They didn’t voluntarily drop. Return to office mandates, less flexibility around care, and the elimination of DEI and ERG programs were big factors.

People who think “oh yes, this is great” either haven’t fully thought through the consequences, or they don’t care about women. What happens to these women if/when they want to return to the workforce, but now their skills are outdated and there’s a 15 year gap on their resume? What happens if their husband dies or leaves them? What happens to them in retirement? What happens to the economy when half of the labor and talent pool is gone?

I’m not saying it’s a bad thing to stay home with kids (it’s wonderful if inclination and financial circumstances allow), but it should be a choice, not something forced on women because men don’t want to compete with them. “Ingrained biological roles” is just a subset of the Appeal to Nature fallacy.

This!!!!! Individual freedom to choose! Not dictating people's decisions. Someone posted earlier questioning how Republicans are seen as controlling and the PP saying women should be at home is exactly that controlling attitude.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The entire premise of this thread ("how can my well adjusted son be Republican?!") is grotesque.

it is just the next step in the evolution , once you have nothing but contempt for other people , you know, those damn deplorables, the US workers that do manual labor, well the next step is to make sure you tell your family "they" are not human.

makes them feel superior.

You’ve just described the Republican attitude towards illegally present immigrants.

Fixed it for you.

So you think that illegally present immigrants are not human.

Got it.

Your statement doesn't make any sense. They are a illegally present, not an immigrant, and somehow that has an impact on their humanity.

What?

Just because we want to close the borders doesn't mean the liberal scum gets to treat them like less than human. We are gently as possible removing them from the country any other human being that doesn't belong here.

“As gently as possible” snatching people off the street and rendering them to an El Salvador torture prison where they are beaten and starved and told they will never see the light of day again. What’s your idea of harsh?

It's not a vacation at the Hilton:
"Multiple news outlets and reports say that a group of House Democrats — Reps. Maxwell Frost (FL), Robert Garcia (CA), Maxine Dexter (OR), and Yassamin Ansari (AZ) — stayed at the Hilton San Salvador during their visit to the capital city of San Salvador on or around April 21, 2025"

That has nothing to do with the question. Stay on topic.

It does. Why do liberals go on vacations to Nazi towns?

How is it a "vacation?" Who goes on vacations with work colleagues? Nobody. They were there to find out more about what's going on with CECOT.

Just pointing out how Democrats don't have any problems traveling to foreign countries and staying at cushy hotels, taking advantage of cheap labor while the governments at the places are considered to be persecuting people.

Remember when Matt Gaetz traveled to El Salvador in 2023 to meet with Bukele? I do.

Remember when Gaetz, Trump Jr., Tucker Carlson, and Rubio traveled to El Salvador last year to attend Bukele’s second inauguration? I doubt they stayed in a youth hostel. No, they probably stayed in similar cushy accommodations, taking advantage of the cheap labor that you’ve suddenly developed such deep concern about.

Speaking of vacationing in Nazi towns (as you were earlier), remember when Republican Madison Cawthorn visited Hitler’s vacation retreat? I do.

Republicans like Bukele though, so it's morally consistent.

On "Hitlers vacation retreat," you do realize its one of the biggest tourist attractions in Germany right? Not exactly a statement to go there.

Oh, so when Republicans go somewhere, it’s just a vacation, but when Democrats go somewhere, it’s a moral statement?

GTFO with your double standards. Nobody’s fooled by your Alice in Wonderland logic.

It's not a double standard. What you're saying would be akin to saying there's no difference between and a cattle rancher and a vegan activist eating a steak. Of course there is. For the rancher, there is no inconsistency between statement and action. For the vegan activist, there is.

You’re trying to claim that Republicans have no moral standards, thus they are exempt from criticism? What a weird argument. Nobody should be voting for them, in that case.

You're being really tedious so I will explain increase more but that's it. Republicans affirmatively like and support Bukele. He fits with their image of effective government because he took El Salvador from being the most dangerous nation in Latin America to the safest. Liberals hate him. This really isn't difficult, but you're being difficult for no clear reason. Go bug your husband now.

Yes, I already know all that, but you’ve still failed to make a logical case that Democrats are bad because a congressional delegation visited El Salvador. Shouldn’t you be out rolling coal on cyclists or something?

[Anonymous]

Deplorable people prefer political policies that insulate them from the majority of society.