The kids won't be at home, they'll be working. I mean, it's like you're not even trying to keep up, Danny.

Have to replace all those deported migrants some how!

Easy. All the fired government employees will be relocated to labor camps where they can work agricultural jobs and put roofs on Edwards’ houses.

Hakeem Jeffries says that the Ethics Committee can do whatever it wants in regards to covering up Matt Gaetz's underage sex scandal.

Dems are always afraid to fight.

Can it be requested through an FOI request?

I hear they are going to name Epstein's ghost to head the department of Children and Family Services.

I heard it was Casey Anthony.

Head of Early Childhood Development.

And yet even some of the parody appointments are more qualified than most of the past four years appointees.

Jon has been named head of the Bureau of Diversity and Inclusion.

I'm definitely the right man for that job.

It's definitely not a cult.

Re. Troy Nehls:

So not just a Christian-Nationalist, but also a twice divorced rapist who has cheated on all his wives.... the perfect modern conservative.

What we know about sexual assault allegations against Trump cabinet pick Pete Hegseth - nj.com

Divorce…People doing people things. Cheating on a spouse is rampant in both parties but I’m guessing by your comment it’s more rampant in the Democrat party? Any idea why the sexual assault charges were dropped?

This isn't about parties it's about picking the right person to lead our military. Trump considered him during his last administration and dropped it because initial vetting didn't look good. They didn't vet him at all this time and it sounds like they may ask him to bow out of his nomination because they expect more to come out.

You can't be so far up the GOP's ass that you think this guy is a good choice? There are plenty of actually qualified people out there that would be good choices. This guy was picked simply because Trump likes Fox and Friends and served in the military.

Let's look at his qualifications:

Academically he does have degrees from Princeton and Harvard. He was an infantry Major and did multiple deployments into combat zones. The bronze stars look nice but it was a standard end of tour award for senior NCOs and officers that were deployed to combat zones during those times. Not knocking there but they shouldn't be used as a qualification for anything.

He worked at Bear Stearns for a couple years leading up to its collapse in '08. Zero foreign policy experience. Never been the head of a large or even mid sized company. He did lead a tiny non-profit I guess.

Now we get into the tattoos that got him flagged by the military as a security threat. The multiple divorces and affairs. The sexual assault allegations.

Most of his career, outside of the military, has been working for partisan think tanks and working on one of the most partisan television programs.

Let's look at someone like Mike Waltz:

26 years active duty. Former special forces, green beret, etc. 4 Bronze Stars, 2 with valor, which means they weren't just end of tour awards. Worked in the Pentagon as a defense policy director for secretaries of defense Donald Rumsfeld and Robert Gates. Worked in the White House as the president's counterterrorism advisor. Was a founder of Metis Solutions, an analytical company that was sold for $92 million. He's served in the House since 2018.

That's just pulling the qualifications of the one other name I saw brought up as a potential Trump Secretary of Defense.

We are discussing different reasons to question him. Nothing that you have stated is addressing the concerns Ghost Recon brought up. I was addressing his specific concerns.

Fairly standard practice here.

Liberal one: He slept around, he’s not qualified, ugh…

Liberal two: yeah!

Conservative: They’ve all slept around, Walz has a baby with his house cleaner for example, and Kamala’s rise to prominence was sleeping with the married Mayor of SF. I’ve not seen liberal one complain about that, not once.

Liberal two: That’s not what this is about…it’s about on the job qualifications and Fox News…

Come on. I don't know how true the accusations are, but Ghost clearly included rapist and that's what he's primarily objecting to.

Liberal one: He's a rapist, he’s not qualified, ugh…

Liberal two: yeah!

Conservative: They’ve all slept around, Walz has a baby with his house cleaner for example, and Kamala’s rise to prominence was sleeping with the married Mayor of SF. I’ve not seen liberal one complain about that, not once.

Liberal two: Come on.

Qualifications and questionable behavior would both be considered reasons to question him, I'd think.



Not true.


He wasn't mayor at the time and he had been separated for a decade.


Having an affair is against UCMJ. For civilians like Kamala and others it would be questionable behavior but obviously not disqualifying. For Hegseth, the affairs aren't necessarily disqualifying but is part of a history of ignoring UCMJ and other rules. If he were running for office that would be entirely different than overseeing our military.

He was California speaker at the time and gave a government job to his girlfriend.

That's how honest government works right?

And later she was chosen to be VP based on her genitals.

Yeah where the hell does the bit about the house cleaner come from?

I think the house cleaner was Doug Emhoff, not Tim Walz.

So was JD Vance and plenty of other men throughout the country are chosen for positions based on their genitals on a daily basis. Why do people only have a problem with it when it's women?


EDIT: My overall point on this is it seems women get nitpicked on things like this while no one goes digging into men's relationships to see how they got their first break or anything like that. I got my first IT job largely because I'm a veteran. Does that invalidate everything I've done since? You could argue I'm not our nation's VP, but how many VPs have he had because they're a male? Men don't see that same level of scrutiny.

So Dutch is just taking falsehoods for granted and dropping them in like fact, then bothsidesing that liberals aren’t bothered by falsehood. Cool cool.

I'm always fascinated by how Christian Nationalists insist on embracing leaders who would be biblically disqualified from leading their local church.

(If you're not a Christian Nationalist, then I have less of an issue with it -- other than the obvious caveat that if you can't trust a guy to remain faithful to the most intimate relationship in his live, why should you trust him to be faithful to anything else?)

Quite simply because Joe Biden explicitly said he was choosing a VP candidate based on her genital. If some corporation said they were only hiring a candidate because they had a penis they would be sued into oblivion.

Do you think a VP candidate should be chosen for their genitals or not?

Joe Biden and the Democrats don't believe so. He was cheered for doing so.

Comes back to the binary/lesser of two evils stuff. For those who believe in that, which at this point appears to be about 95% of Americans, the only relevant factor is the comparison to other major party candidate.

Why do you care? Like, why is this such an affront? Yes, there are men qualified for VP. There are also women qualified for VP, yet somehow we never seem to chose one (candidates yes, actual VP before this no). But we can’t actually select one, because NO FAIR!

Because I believe people should be chosen for a job regardless of genitals or race.

Democrats don't believe that.

And…is this typically a problem? If so, who does this typically benefit? Are we able to do things to correct it or no? Can we, just as long as we don’t talk about it?

(Also, shocked that this view might possibly hurt your dating chances.)

So thinking that judging men and women for political should be based on merit and not genitals is hurting my dating chances? Eh, probably not.

But it is probably hurting the Democrats chances of taking office.

Not really true. Most dems actually would like to see equality. The problem is the only way to correct 250+ years of inequality is to selectively overcorrect.

If you and I decide to run a race and we're equal speed and, lets say I get a 10 step head start, I'm going to be 10 steps ahead of you throughout the race. At no point can you catch me no matter how long we race without someone stepping in and doing something to equalize things.

I mean, if your current disposition is working for you, I could well be wrong.

Biden and Cheney were different, but almost every VP in the past 60 years has been an identity pick.

Vance - young men
Harris - black women
Pence - white evangelicals

There's very little for the VP to do, so it's normal to pick a candidate who helps shore up a particular demographic. This absolutely happens with male candidates.

You don't have to say you're hiring a man because he has a penis because it's expected. Make JD Vance a woman and give him equal qualifications do you think Trump picks him? No chance. He was selected because he's a male and no one blinks an eye because acceptance has been ingrained in our society for centuries.

Let me know how the election worked out for you.

Actually if JD Vance was a woman I think Trump would still pick "him". Unless you have evidence to the contrary then this is a useless tangent to the discussion.

Trump has selected more white males for positions in both of his administrations than any other president this century. It's nice that you think a woman would have an equal chance.

I’m only worried about who won because of concerns about my country (and well being of my wife and kids) not because of party loyalty. If this turns out badly for me, well, I won’t be the only one with issues. Problems will be pretty apparent. (That is to say, if it didn’t “work out” for me it’s because on the whole we’re fucked.)

If I’m wrong, tell me so in four years.

Additionally, the GOP doesn't either. Women and minorities are held to a higher standard. Kamala's qualifications were questioned when she was running against a mixed success real estate mogul and reality television star with zero political experience before becoming President. As mentioned above, he also selected the most white males for his administrations than any President since Clinton.

What evidence do you have the GOP doesn't choose people based on genitals or race?

Trump just nominated a pedophile for Attorney General. Sort of get the feeling neither party views this as a meritocracy.

Then maybe your party shouldn't of pinned their hopes on a DEI hire.

Trying to argue the GOP is selecting people without regard to genitals and race is one hell of a hill to die on. Probably one of the stranger agreements I've seen on here, to be honest.

I knew you leaned right, but thought you were pretty sensible until stuff like this.

So burn it down because you’re mad at about a black woman. You seem rational.

Considering that Democrats died trying to take the Hill will Kamala, it doesn't seem so bad.

Probably better than dying trying to take the capital.

I voted for Kamala, don't blame me that she was a terrible candidate.

Ah, time to add to that list.

That's fine, but show me some sort of evidence that the GOP doesn't pick people based on race and genitals. I'll wait.

Yeah, I have many issues with Harris, but this isn't one of them. The DEI complaints make sense in some limited circumstances where it's a changing history stand-in for example, but the idea that Republicans somehow aren't selecting people for anything on race/gender is absurd. There's also no good reason to think that's why Trump won.

I'm sure all those 30 year old lifetime federal judges that were being nominated with no experience were based on merit.

Just say black. It's OK.

The Republicans are selecting people based on who can win.

That's why they're winning.

I don't remember Joe saying he picked Kamala because of her race.

She was also picked to be the VP and they won. Her selection for President was mostly a hailmary after the Democrats plans to cover up Biden's mental decline became public. She never would have been the nominee through any sort of democratic process.

Well except for the previous election.

You can live in the past if you want.

So it's ok to pick based on race and gender if you win? Unless you still insist that's not what the GOP does.

Trump's cabinet also isn't voted on. He selects them and they've been almost entirely white males in both administrations. But I'm sure that's only because they were the most qualified. Like Gaetz, Hegseth, his personal attorneys, etc. Donalds and Scott will be thankful to know that the fact that they're black had nothing to do with them not being selected for VP or any other administration position.

Harris was also selected based on who they thought would win. So again, no difference there.

So maybe one of those thought processes were wrong.

That's true in literally every election no matter what happens. Only one candidate wins. This lacks what you might call a point.

Serious question; are you posting under the influence of ... shall we say ... any adult substances?

So are you complaining about the VP or not? Cause they won after she was what you describe as a DEI hire.

dola

Hegseth's lawyer says that Hegseth paid the woman who accused him of sexual assault and that there's an NDA. He denies assault, but that sure does look bad.

Im just a terrible person. You all are right. I,m Wrong.

I'm sorry to bother you.

She was a successful prosecutor, she was ELECTED AG of the most populous state, she was Elected Senator of California, she was elected as VP as part of a ticket with Biden.

She is beyond qualified and way more qualified than anyone in Trumps orbit.

Look,

You win, I don't know anything.

Have fun win your winning candidate.

I think both of these are true. Harris was picked in 2020 by Biden because she was both a woman of color and highly qualified.

Most Vice President picks now days are "DEI" picks because they are usually chosen to balance the ticket.

Tim Walz was certainly a DEI choice. Harris was almost certainly going to pick a white male to balance the ticket. Was Tim Walz an unqualified vice president pick? I don't think so.

This is impossible to say.

If Biden had decided much sooner not to run for a 2nd term there would have been a Democratic primary.

Harris would have potentially had a big visibility advantage by being the sitting vice president. over other potential candidates such as Gavin Newsome, Gretchen Whitmer, Josh Shapiro, Mark Kelly, and Cory Booker. It's impossible to say for sure who is the Democratic nominee for president in that hypothetical scenario.

Oh yes, my mistake on remembering exactly which Democrat was screwing who. Perhaps I was thinking of the Georgia AG that was going after Trump but somehow landed on Walz and not Kamala’s husband. At least Kamala didn’t marry until she was 50 to avoid her looking like she was wrecking her own home with her affairs. So let me give her some credit there.

As for Hegseth, it is a bad look indeed if he paid a lady for an NDA, let’s hope it doesn’t interfere with his job duties.

Not sure if below article belongs here, but what the heck. The uptick in 4Bs is attributed to the Trump election. Watch out single guys ...

Just a moment...

Article said began in SK because of the resentment by women there. I read a couple more articles and could not find est. number of Korean women doing this. In my opinion, SK women have more to complain about than US women. I can see it taking off in SK (not related to Trump obviously) and US women were already doing no marriage and no birthing before Nov. But hard to see US women mass adoption of no dating and no sex.

I have 2 close friends, both divorced single moms, who do this. Not because of Trump being elected per se, but because men in general are horrible. They would also never date a Trump supporter if they did go back

A liberal women that was a guest on Maher's show made a good point about this. Liberal women will follow this path and not conservatives. So, conservative families will be raising children in conservative homes that will become voters someday, while liberal women won't be producing or raising children in liberal homes. Great idea, right?

I didn’t think of that, interesting unintended consequences.

Hate to break the news but, men in general are not horrible. Now if one party keeps telling them that they are, maybe just maybe, they'll vote for the other party?

Who has time for details? One Dem is screwing around, they’re all guilty.

And…unmarried people are legally allowed to have relationships, yes? I mean, I’m sure religious types would love to outlaw that, but for now I believe an unmarried person is allowed to manage their own “affairs”?

I mean, fuck - one of you is pissed that someone got a job with the wrong genitalia, another of you is bent because they had the temerity to actually use said genitalia. (And now we’re developing the angle that apparently NOT using that genitalia is ALSo offense. It’s almost as if owners of this genitalia can’t win!)

Has nothing to do with the party, has to do with their experiences. I have seen some of their DMs from dating sites. Trust me, men are horrible.

Some men are horrible. Others aren't. Taking the 'all men suck' approach is no better than the incel 'all women are evil' rants.

Some people suck in general. Not all people, of any group.

apples and hand grenades.

When you are a woman who just saw majority of men vote to support a party actively trying to take away your rights it is easy to understand how they could look unfavorably at them as a whole.

I thought you just said it wasn't about party? Either way, no, it's completely apples and oranges. Men who are anti-women have grievances they think are legitimate also, based on their personal experiences.

It's understandable to have any matter of opinions, but when last figure I saw was 44% of men voted for Harris, you're throwing almost half of men under the bus who voted with you. And oh by the way, a lot of women voted for Trump too. The gender gap was about 10%, a fraction of the number of each gender that absolutely don't sync with that kind of 'men vs. women' narrative.

It's just an irrational response.

Her “affairs” were getting down with a 60-year old man because he had clout to get ahead. You can spin it however you need to, you can get mad at God or Christians if you need to but those actions finally caught up to her when she was 60 and had to do it the right way and thankfully enough swing voters found out she didn’t have enough substance to her campaign.

I'm guessing you don't have many, or any at all, friends who are girls who have shared their dating experiences with you.

Again, the same applies to anti-women men. Bad dating experiences are not gender-exclusive.

I'm a man and I am not horrible. Are you?

Has to do with experience? Exactly. Men having the experience of being told by one party that they are in general horrible may decide to vote for the party that doesn't tell them they are horrible. Everything in life isn't sexism or misogyny, but if a man says that out loud, well he is sexist and misogynistic according to one party. Despite that shortcoming of the far left I still voted for Harris.

I have no doubt about the DMs from a dating site. Probably similar to the women that only want 6' or taller and a 6 figure salary or don't bother talking to me. I'm sure most of those women at least decline the guys that don't qualify in a nice manner, but I'd guess there are some that make a point of humiliating those guys for thinking they should even talk to her. Point being there are assholes in every group.

This.

Remind me which gender had tons of kids running around yelling "your body my choice" in schools the day after the election?

I’d be quite curious about the ages there, Lathum. I’m asking because I suspect what you’re really seeing is that the overwhelming majority of men who are 40 and up and unmarried or divorced AND on dating sights are in that situation because they suck. ;)

That is very fair and you would be correct. That being said younger men are becoming increasingly more hostile to women as they flock to influencers such as Andrew Tate.

That’s true, and I agree (and I believe have posted at FOFC to that effect,) that we have a young male problem in our society. But I also think your characterization is overstating it.

I think that’s a safe assumption that most men don’t have women sharing their dating experiences with then. You’re likely drawing conclusions from to small of a sample size. Also, a few other things:

1. The population of men on dating apps doesn’t necessarily have same traits as those who don’t use them or are in relationships.
2. I’m guessing like 10% of the guys on these sites get like 90% of the matches so responses aren’t even representative of this population.
3. Democrats still need some men to vote for them. Obviously this is a message board with a very small reach so who cares but this is the kind of language that has turned the Joe Rogen’s of the US against the Democrats..

There is all kind of literature on this subject. While my examples are anecdotal they are far from unique. Not to mention men have been in control for a few thousand years and women may be getting kind of tired of it. When you also consider rights they have gained in the last 50 or so years are already being rolled back by old white men it is understandable how generalizations could be made.

Why would you assume most men don't have women sharing their dating experiences? If true maybe more men should and they would understand why they feel the way they do.

There is indeed a lot of literature, and on the whole it does not paint the one-sided picture you have described.

Again, the whole 'rolled back by old white men' is simply not an accurate statement. It is far closer to a lie than the truth.

We have a president elect responsible for overturning Roe, we have a nominee for Sec of defense who is on the record saying women shouldn't be in combat roles, we have young men and right wing influencers yelling your body my choice, and a VP elect that would be on board with a national abortion ban.

But sure buddy.

And who put them there? It is far closer to an even number of men and women voting them in, then men voting them in over the objections of women through their sheer numbers.

On the societal level, men can do nothing that a significant number of women do not agree to. There are slightly more women than men in the United States. And as said, a lot of men voted for Harris, just not as many as voted for Trump. If women wanted to be represented by a lot more women or a lot more people of any ideological bent, they have the power to make it happen.

There are elected female representatives doing idiotic and irresponsible things, and the same in the influencer space. It's not as if it's only one segment of the population doing these things.

Reports are coming out that Trump plans to go after military aged, undocumented Chinese. Given that the last time we did mass deportation up to 50% of those deported were actually citizens, I think I have every right to worry about the safety of my daughter.

According to Edward just have her carry her passport when they ask for papers and worst case scenario the courts will handle everything.