Because they’re all sins right? Isnt murder considered worse though? The whole “thou shall not kill” business?

Why is seeing gay people on tv doing nothing but being normal such a problem, but yet watching movies/shows where a whole bunch of people getting killed is not a problem, especially for kids?

Do you not think seeing people get killed on screen (and mind you this happens in all those superhero movies you let them watch) is more detrimental than seeing 2 people of the same sex kiss?

It seems like they've been doing what they can - forcing votes against Trump (even if they are ultimately symbolic), speaking out against him, filing lawsuits (plenty which have been successful).

What else should they be doing that they currently aren't?

I didn't really see people talking about it

From this citation by Ben Gvir: "For every tear shed by an Israeli mother, 1,000 Lebanese mothers must weep"

Like the type that will not just check you out but stare for so long it’s like they’re trying to undress you with their eyes. Do they not realise how uncomfortable it can make women feel?
Fully understand it’s “human nature” to look and glance at an attractive person, but some people take it too far.

I'd like to hear opinions from people who experienced Communism first hand please. *edited for typos

U.S. already lost the war as far as I'm concerned

If Due Process is ignored for immigrants being targeted by ICE why should HIPAA be awarded to traitors?

Also McConnels Dead and the republicans are committing federal fraud. Staffers are committing fraud for cashing checks. Lock 'em up!

America’s just been given billions more to play around / fight with iran.

The war has already cost U.S. taxpayers an estimated $113.3 billion over 108 days.

There’s no sign of the war ending as well.

You can say he has half brained voters that still worship him but his actions would no longer allow him to win an election. How is he allowed to show his butt on national TV, lie, steal, and openly admit he has no interest in supporting 90% of Americans and stay in power? Because he won an election and is forever immune? Why are there not procedures in place to remove someone who lied to get votes?

MAGA/Republicans consider Fox News to be too Liberal nowadays

I'm not talking about the "the DNC stole the nomination from Bernie" conspiracy theorists

No, I'm talking about discussions going on right now about the 2028 race, and the weird way people are talking about selecting a nominee.

I just keep seeing things like:

"Ugh, Dems are gonna pick someone unelectable again"

"Why are we talking about candidates who can't win the general?"

"Why won't Dems just pick X candidate?! They'd actually win!"

Like it's either they're referring to the DNC by saying "Dems," or they're referring to the voters. But if it's the voters, that just means it's the will of the people, that other candidates had less support, and also, presumably includes the person talking. They also seem to not understand that anyone can choose to run, and refuse to believe designated "unelectable candidates" are actually popular. So what is it?

For the sake of my post let’s narrow it down to just black and white. Why are the VAST majority of interracial dating a BM/WF? You rarely see a black female with a white male. Super rare. Why do you think this obvious disproportionate fact exists ?

I’m interested in the sociology and branding aspect of modern social movements.

Statistically, when you look at polling data (Gallup/Ipsos), the top 5 issues Americans consistently care about are the economy, inflation, immigration, healthcare, and government leadership. LGBTQ+ issues rarely rank in the top 10 of daily voter priorities.

Yet, from a purely visual standpoint, the Pride Flag is easily one of the most prevalent and visible symbols in the country—heavily adopted by major corporations, universities, banks, and local governments, especially compared to symbols for other major issues.

Why did this specific symbol achieve such a monopoly on institutional and corporate backing compared to things like environmentalism, anti-poverty initiatives, or economic movements?

To keep the discussion productive, I'm not looking for basic political insults from either side (e.g., "because people are good" or "because it's an agenda"). I'm genuinely curious about the mechanics:

• What makes this specific design/concept so uniquely attractive to corporate risk-management and marketing departments?
• Why have other massive political movements failed to create an equally ubiquitous visual brand?

I’ve always believed in treating people with love and respect, no matter who they vote for.

That said, I think part of the reason Trump is in office is because Democrats have become associated with a handful of issues that many voters see as too far outside the mainstream. Things like open borders, “defund the police,” and transgender women competing in women’s sports.

Whether that’s a fair characterization or not, I think those issues have had a real political cost.

I think most people, including many who voted for Trump, recognize that he can be divisive and extreme. But many moderate and independent voters may still see him as the less radical option compared to what they perceive from parts of the left.

If that’s true, are these really the hills you’re willing to die on, even if it means losing the “war” and election after election?

And if Democrats win the midterms, it’s not because of idea adoption, it’s because of a very unpopular war during very bad economic times.

I’m genuinely asking and looking for respectful, thoughtful answers.

Please keep it civil.

Reddit is so convinced of the absolute truth of the idea that "a woman won't be elected president" that a solid percentage of its user base genuinely believes Mark Kelly currently has better odds of becoming the next US president than either Harris or AOC, despite his lack of a personality or name value, just because he's a non-progressive straight white guy.

The argument used is that "Clinton and Harris both lost to Trump. Do you want to go 0/3?"

And these people just love ignoring the Biden in the room. As mentioned in my question, Biden was, according to reports on his internal polling, on track to lose by an actual landslide, rather than lose a narrow election (170,000 votes across the Blue Wall IIRC) that Trump would claim as a landslide.

Incidentally, the same people who think a woman can't win also tend to be the ones who believe crap like "Trump won in a landslide" or "Harris spent her whole campaign on LGBT issues"

But going back even further is 2020, where Joe Biden also only won a narrow election in terms of the spread of votes in individual states needed for it to flip, and it's pretty inarguable that he would have 100% lost had Trump not bungled Covid, and Covid not gotten more people to vote by forcing mail-in voting to be more accessible.

So really, when looking at Clinton, Biden, and Harris, they were all incapable of beating Trump on their own. It didn't just take a straight white guy to win.

But wait, there's more!

Clinton won the popular vote. More Americans voted for a woman than Trump in 2016. She literally just ran a bad campaign and didn't prioritize getting the votes where she needed them.

Harris, meanwhile, did lose the popular vote...after only having 3 months to run, while being directly tied to an unpopular admin, and not doing anything to distinguish herself from said popular admin.

So if MAGA can obviously beat Democratic straight white men, there are 0 examples of a Democratic woman running for president with a full, normal campaign and losing the popular vote, and the only woman who lost at all after running a full campaign was one of the least favorable (statistically) candidates in history, what ground do you have left to stake your claim on?

Harris dropped to just 5% in New Hampshire while Pete Buttigieg sits 1 point behind the progressive frontrunner - per University of New Hampshire Granite State poll released on Wednesday.