/pt/ – Petrarchan

I was trying to explain 'brat summer' to my mum a few months ago and I felt like I had schizophrenia. > so err there's this singer, charli xcx, she's english i think she's from cambridge, anyway, she made this album called brat and it's all about going out all night and doing club drugs and smoking cigarettes... anyway for some reason it was adopted by the kamala harris for president people, and they started writing all their campaign slogans on a neon green background because that's how the album cover looks, and they said she was brat even though she's not a ketty party girl from england she's a sixty year old united states senator... yeah anyway after like three weeks everyone forgot that any of this ever happened

I overestimated the amount of people that would fall for it and lost $600.

this seems to happen every US election especially on reddit. What was astroturfing like for the conservative side? how do non Americans feel about the constant barrage of political slop on every major website?

Kamilla overplayed her hand like Hilldawg before her, it had nothing to do with what Trump did or didn't do

I don't think Americans will ever vote for a woman president

>>4462

I don't think Americans will ever vote for a woman president

Trump is more feminine than your average female politician (obsession with musicals, heavy use of make-up, beard wife)

>>4461 But why? Is there any reason to think that? Both female candidates we've had have been awful

>>4470

>>4461 But why? Is there any reason to think that? Both female candidates we've had have been awful

Wrong post tagged, question discarded, post invalidated

>>4462

I don't think Americans will ever vote for a woman president

There is some truth to that but Kamala was clearly just an absolutely awful candidate, like Hillary. Not only do they both have the blood of thousands on their hands, which most American voters don’t really care for tbh, but they have the charisma of a block of wood and the cadence and condescension of that teacher in middle or high school everyone hated. A 42 year old man from Ohio or Pennsylvania who got laid off his job at an auto plant isn’t gonna vote for the woman who is currently running the country to continue the same policies that the incredibly unpopular Biden administration implemented and which she had the power to change being the VP but didn’t. She didn’t even have a proper campaign platform, she just said “we have to stop trump because he is mean” and refused to elaborate. That’s not gonna win most voters over.

>>4462

I don't think Americans will ever vote for a woman president

It could happen yet. Especially in more stable times because I kind of doubt it'll be a woman finding the crown in the gutter. Unironically AOC has the best shot at present. Nobody wanted Hillary or Kamala. The circumstances that elevated them to the ticket were undignified.

>>4497

>>4462 It could happen yet. Especially in more stable times because I kind of doubt it'll be a woman finding the crown in the gutter. Unironically AOC has the best shot at present. Nobody wanted Hillary or Kamala. The circumstances that elevated them to the ticket were undignified.

>Not only do they both have the blood of thousands on their hands, which most American voters don’t really care for tbh American voters do not care one iota for deaths overseas, but are fearful of their own involvement in neo-con wars. Hence Trump is self-proclaimed anti-war. >AOC has the best shot at present It cannot be AOC because she is a self-proclaimed socialist, a step too far for Americans. Given the general air of corruption around Trump and the integration of Musk and general sucking-up of Bezos/Zuckerberg/Gates et al., there is a real sense of a renewed Gilded Age. A left populist wealth-redistributionist campaign is quite viable. But populist politics in USA (and almost everywhere) is necessarily anti-migration. Are there any left-wingers left in the US who are prepared to take this stance? How about strafing to Trump's right and proposing to denaturalize naturalized citizens who committed crimes after they were naturalized? How about whipping violent criminals à la Singapore? The Democrats are greatly hemmed in by their past policy positions and their tendency to take the side of reprobate scum like BLM rioters (this is not to say that BLM as a movement didn't have good points, because it did)

Yeah and on this topic the reactions to the 2024 election results on both sides are genuinely idiotic and delusional. Conservatives saw it and thought that it meant that they had a mandate from the ghost of George Washington himself that meant they were now gonna rule the country for 500 years and that they could just do whatever they wanted because they got a small lead in the popular vote. The liberals are even worse. They’ve refused to see the issues, and instead have caved into their pre-conceived notions of half of Americans being stupid rednecks who haven’t been enlightened by their Ivy League Connecticut education enough to vote for Kamala for some fucking reason none of them will explain to you because no one actually knew, much less remembers what policies Kamala stood for other than giving black men money for crypto and continuing every single policy of the Biden administration. Case in point, the pic. The delusional Redditor thinks the reason behind Kamal’s election loss is incomprehensible and so complex you have to dive into the ends of American history to understand it and also AI plays a role for some reason. Literally the simple answer is that the Biden administration sucked and that Biden’s approval rating almost never saw net-positive numbers since the Afghanistan withdrawal. People didn’t like the administration, and liberals like to pretend things were great with GDP growth and all that but when the average person sees grocery store prices have gone up and their kids can’t afford to buy a home they don’t give a shit about what mega corps are earning record money to prop up GDP growth. And Trump certainly wasn’t gonna fix those issues, but people didn’t care because they at least wanted to try something different, and this is what liberals don’t understand when they see the election results. Then there was the first debate that just showed how much the DNC had lied about Biden’s health and the DNC’s only reaction was to have a mini-civil war and then trot out uncharismatic astroturfed Kamala who didn’t try to portray herself as anything other than a continuation to the Biden administration which most people hated by November of 24 so we got the election results. That’s it. Now you can argue about how a conman like Trump manipulated so many people to believe he was a viable alternative, but the reason Kamala lost is literally just because people didn’t like what the government was doing and Kamala was a continuation of that government.

I remember during the last few days leading up to the election liberal news outlets were putting anything out to try and convince voters to vote for Kamala. They were all reporting about how a high ranking general was comparing Trump to Hitler, the whole Project 2025 fear mongering, and the constant political ads on every platform. Also those ads where it was a former trump voter being like "I'm voting for Kamala and I'm a conservative." Also all of the celebrities saying they're voting for Kamala expecting that to make the average person change their vote, they even got Dick Cheney to say that too which I'm not sure what their thought process was behind that. Or when Obama spoke at a rally basically scolding black people for not voting for Kamala. I can't believe how blatantly obvious the astroturfing and propaganda was and how it shut off like a faucet the second the election was over. Even after the first debate when people finally saw that the DNC was lying about Biden's condition they swept him under the rug and never mentioned it. Why are people not more outraged and talking more about how the media lied to everyone? I guess you could argue they control whatever gets views so they could just suppress anything that speaks out against their platform.

>>4508

I remember during the last few days leading up to the election liberal news outlets were putting anything out to try and convince voters to vote for Kamala. They were all reporting about how a high ranking general was comparing Trump to Hitler, the whole Project 2025 fear mongering, and the constant political ads on every platform. Also those ads where it was a former trump voter being like "I'm voting for Kamala and I'm a conservative." Also all of the celebrities saying they're voting for Kamala expecting that to make the average person change their vote, they even got Dick Cheney to say that too which I'm not sure what their thought process was behind that. Or when Obama spoke at a rally basically scolding black people for not voting for Kamala. I can't believe how blatantly obvious the astroturfing and propaganda was and how it shut off like a faucet the second the election was over. Even after the first debate when people finally saw that the DNC was lying about Biden's condition they swept him under the rug and never mentioned it. Why are people not more outraged and talking more about how the media lied to everyone? I guess you could argue they control whatever gets views so they could just suppress anything that speaks out against their platform.

>Project2025 fear mongering Project 2025 is the roadmap of Trump's first 100 days, genius. Trump is going to have the Project 2025 guy in multiple top-level executive positions.

>>4508

I remember during the last few days leading up to the election liberal news outlets were putting anything out to try and convince voters to vote for Kamala. They were all reporting about how a high ranking general was comparing Trump to Hitler, the whole Project 2025 fear mongering, and the constant political ads on every platform. Also those ads where it was a former trump voter being like "I'm voting for Kamala and I'm a conservative." Also all of the celebrities saying they're voting for Kamala expecting that to make the average person change their vote, they even got Dick Cheney to say that too which I'm not sure what their thought process was behind that. Or when Obama spoke at a rally basically scolding black people for not voting for Kamala. I can't believe how blatantly obvious the astroturfing and propaganda was and how it shut off like a faucet the second the election was over. Even after the first debate when people finally saw that the DNC was lying about Biden's condition they swept him under the rug and never mentioned it. Why are people not more outraged and talking more about how the media lied to everyone? I guess you could argue they control whatever gets views so they could just suppress anything that speaks out against their platform.

>Even after the first debate when people finally saw that the DNC was lying about Biden's condition they swept him under the rug and never mentioned it DNC is like: 2019: 'Biden has a stutter' 2020: 'Biden has a stutter' 2021: 'Biden has a stutter' 2022: 'Biden has a stutter' 2023: 'Biden has a stutter' 2024: 'Biden has a stutter' 2025 pre-debate: 'Biden has a stutter' 2025 post-debate: 'Biden has dementia and needs replacing ASAP' 2026: 'POLITICAL STAFFER TELLS ALL IN NEW BOOK: Here's how I helped cover up the president's being demented'

>>4518

>>4508 >Even after the first debate when people finally saw that the DNC was lying about Biden's condition they swept him under the rug and never mentioned it DNC is like: 2019: 'Biden has a stutter' 2020: 'Biden has a stutter' 2021: 'Biden has a stutter' 2022: 'Biden has a stutter' 2023: 'Biden has a stutter' 2024: 'Biden has a stutter' 2025 pre-debate: 'Biden has a stutter' 2025 post-debate: 'Biden has dementia and needs replacing ASAP' 2026: 'POLITICAL STAFFER TELLS ALL IN NEW BOOK: Here's how I helped cover up the president's being demented'

Uh the debate was in 2024 but you see what I mean.

>>4497

>>4462 It could happen yet. Especially in more stable times because I kind of doubt it'll be a woman finding the crown in the gutter. Unironically AOC has the best shot at present. Nobody wanted Hillary or Kamala. The circumstances that elevated them to the ticket were undignified.

I'm sorry, but you're delusional if you think AOC has a shot. Just like with Hillary, a large plurality of Americans have already decided they hate her, and despite Sanders's success reaching out to Republican-leaning voters with class-based appeals, AOC is way too up her ass with idpol to do the same. This gets to >>4462

I don't think Americans will ever vote for a woman president

. People act like it's Americans' fault for not electing a woman, but the female politicians who've been big enough to run credible campaigns for president or nomination have all been terrible. And despite Hillary and Kamala's objectively bad presidential campaigns, both came pretty close to winning. I think Americans are actually desperate to elect a woman so they can pat themselves on the back and feel good, just like with Obama. It's just that every time a woman gets close enough, she sucks.

>>4525

>>4497 I'm sorry, but you're delusional if you think AOC has a shot. Just like with Hillary, a large plurality of Americans have already decided they hate her, and despite Sanders's success reaching out to Republican-leaning voters with class-based appeals, AOC is way too up her ass with idpol to do the same. This gets to >>4462. People act like it's Americans' fault for not electing a woman, but the female politicians who've been big enough to run credible campaigns for president or nomination have all been terrible. And despite Hillary and Kamala's objectively bad presidential campaigns, both came pretty close to winning. I think Americans are actually desperate to elect a woman so they can pat themselves on the back and feel good, just like with Obama. It's just that every time a woman gets close enough, she sucks.

In all honesty, I don't think you could run a woman, a liberal woman, that wouldn't eventually run into the "I think she sucks" problem with the majority of the US population and especially the men. In my life experience, when the average man encounters a woman who acts like she's in a position of authority above him, he will find some reason or another why she sucks, she's a bitch, etc.

>>4528

>>4525 In all honesty, I don't think you could run a woman, a liberal woman, that wouldn't eventually run into the "I think she sucks" problem with the majority of the US population and especially the men. In my life experience, when the average man encounters a woman who acts like she's in a position of authority above him, he will find some reason or another why she sucks, she's a bitch, etc.

how to reconcile this with the fact that other western democracies have successfully had women leaders for several terms

>>4528

>>4525 In all honesty, I don't think you could run a woman, a liberal woman, that wouldn't eventually run into the "I think she sucks" problem with the majority of the US population and especially the men. In my life experience, when the average man encounters a woman who acts like she's in a position of authority above him, he will find some reason or another why she sucks, she's a bitch, etc.

What if HRC and Kamala were simply awful and that explains the failure to elect a female candidate? One tip for female presidential candidates: don't demand to be elected simply because you are a woman. Remember 'I'm with HER', Clinton's slogan? Kamala was wise to drop the shtick and not prattle on about her XX chromosomes

>>4528

>>4525 In all honesty, I don't think you could run a woman, a liberal woman, that wouldn't eventually run into the "I think she sucks" problem with the majority of the US population and especially the men. In my life experience, when the average man encounters a woman who acts like she's in a position of authority above him, he will find some reason or another why she sucks, she's a bitch, etc.

Dude Americans didn’t vote Trump because Kamala was a woman they voted for Trump because they hated the dems. That’s it.

r/redscarepod had a good moment a few years ago when they discussed how high-profile Republican women like picrel have a peculiar extroverted masculine quality to them. I think about this more often than I should and especially when the topic of women president/female politicians in general comes up online

This pic in particular gives very strong Roman plebeian crowd energy. Something very of-antiquity about it.

The DNC political machine confused youthful political zeal with success.

>> 4532 Not sure, it's mostly a gut feeling. I would say that it doesn't mean it's impossible that a woman could get elected, just that any woman reaching for that level of power will be hit with the "likeability" issue. I also think that other democratic countries have a stronger party influence that voters follow like with Sheinbaum and Rousseff, or are parliamentary systems like the UK or Italy. But I haven't thought about it too much to be honest. >> 4536 Yes, I agree. But I think it's relevant that Kamala got the same perception of an "I'm With HER" style campaign despite not actually running on her history-making status as visibly as HRC did. I think a lot of that has to do with the inertia of decades of HRC glass ceiling type feminism signaling that is associated with the Democrats, and is easily amplified by focusing on the remaining Democrat politicians/staffers/followers/social media accounts/etc that still peddle that style of politics, even though the actual campaign doesn't engage with it. With ties in with - >> 4538 Yeah everyone hates Democrats, I think a part of that is that Democrats are associated with femineity and everytime they try to signal otherwise (White Guys for Harris lol) it comes off as performative. Basically, I think if you took any Democrat woman and put her in the national spotlight for president, the "she's a nagging feminist" style of attack will inevitably make its way into the campaign.

>>4553

>> 4532 Not sure, it's mostly a gut feeling. I would say that it doesn't mean it's impossible that a woman could get elected, just that any woman reaching for that level of power will be hit with the "likeability" issue. I also think that other democratic countries have a stronger party influence that voters follow like with Sheinbaum and Rousseff, or are parliamentary systems like the UK or Italy. But I haven't thought about it too much to be honest. >> 4536 Yes, I agree. But I think it's relevant that Kamala got the same perception of an "I'm With HER" style campaign despite not actually running on her history-making status as visibly as HRC did. I think a lot of that has to do with the inertia of decades of HRC glass ceiling type feminism signaling that is associated with the Democrats, and is easily amplified by focusing on the remaining Democrat politicians/staffers/followers/social media accounts/etc that still peddle that style of politics, even though the actual campaign doesn't engage with it. With ties in with - >> 4538 Yeah everyone hates Democrats, I think a part of that is that Democrats are associated with femineity and everytime they try to signal otherwise (White Guys for Harris lol) it comes off as performative. Basically, I think if you took any Democrat woman and put her in the national spotlight for president, the "she's a nagging feminist" style of attack will inevitably make its way into the campaign.

fucked up the tagging god fucking dammit

>>4532

>>4528 how to reconcile this with the fact that other western democracies have successfully had women leaders for several terms

Most women who've ended up leading nations in the modern era have done so in parliamentary democracies (so they never had to directly convince the electorate to support them as the country's leader) or by being a successful male politician's anointed successor (often, though not always, his wife or daughter).

Been reviewing John Gray on Kamalalalama's loss >The collapse of the liberal order comes chiefly from overreach by American liberals. The charade in which Biden was ousted illustrates their fatal weakness. They believe their own legends. The Harris who campaigned for the presidency, less credible as a candidate than Biden, was a media simulacrum which evaporated on the night of the election. The Democrat insiders who invented the Harris facade, led by Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi, sealed the fate of the regime they sought to renew. >Perpetual wars were a big part of liberal overreach. The campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq were fiascos that destroyed public support for overseas military intervention, probably for a generation. For many who voted for him, Trump was an anti-war candidate. If he sticks to a realist, transactional foreign policy, it will avoid ruinous neoconservative crusades, but may also generate further conflict. He will surely seek vengeance against Iran for its apparent involvement in a plot to assassinate him. With Putin emboldened by a dirty peace in Ukraine, a wider European war becomes more likely. The Baltic states and Poland are actively preparing for such an eventuality. Whatever happens in Europe, Trump may not much care. >The decisive overreach was in America itself. For enough of the electorate, revulsion against the excesses of hyper-liberalism prevailed over women’s fear of losing abortion rights and the prospect of Trumpian tyranny. Memories of a better economy were more compelling than prophecies of an imminent fascist takeover. No one concerned about the uncontrolled influx across the southern border believed a Harris administration would do anything effective to stem it. https://www.newstatesman.com/international-politics/2024/11/donald-trump-triumph-of-illiberal-democracy

>>5189

Been reviewing John Gray on Kamalalalama's loss >The collapse of the liberal order comes chiefly from overreach by American liberals. The charade in which Biden was ousted illustrates their fatal weakness. They believe their own legends. The Harris who campaigned for the presidency, less credible as a candidate than Biden, was a media simulacrum which evaporated on the night of the election. The Democrat insiders who invented the Harris facade, led by Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi, sealed the fate of the regime they sought to renew. >Perpetual wars were a big part of liberal overreach. The campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq were fiascos that destroyed public support for overseas military intervention, probably for a generation. For many who voted for him, Trump was an anti-war candidate. If he sticks to a realist, transactional foreign policy, it will avoid ruinous neoconservative crusades, but may also generate further conflict. He will surely seek vengeance against Iran for its apparent involvement in a plot to assassinate him. With Putin emboldened by a dirty peace in Ukraine, a wider European war becomes more likely. The Baltic states and Poland are actively preparing for such an eventuality. Whatever happens in Europe, Trump may not much care. >The decisive overreach was in America itself. For enough of the electorate, revulsion against the excesses of hyper-liberalism prevailed over women’s fear of losing abortion rights and the prospect of Trumpian tyranny. Memories of a better economy were more compelling than prophecies of an imminent fascist takeover. No one concerned about the uncontrolled influx across the southern border believed a Harris administration would do anything effective to stem it. https://www.newstatesman.com/international-politics/2024/11/donald-trump-triumph-of-illiberal-democracy

This is a lot of words, simply to come to the conclusion that material conditions of constituents matter.

>>5426

>>5189 This is a lot of words, simply to come to the conclusion that material conditions of constituents matter.

But that is not what he is saying.

What do you all make of the recent lawsuit alleging voter machine fraud? Anything to it or Democrat version of 2020 election cope?

It's both

>>5531

What do you all make of the recent lawsuit alleging voter machine fraud? Anything to it or Democrat version of 2020 election cope?

Weren't voting machines made by a company, or companies, owned by George Soros as far back as ~2008?

>5531 My attitude is that this stuff washes out. Red team cheats by methods A, B, and C. Blue team cheats by methods X, Y, and Z. Maybe there's some overlap. I don't particularly care. The point is that the combination of overt and covert actions by each team are roughly in a competitive balance in the one national election that the USA has, and I think that's basically fine. The part that grinds my gears is that there's much less competitive balance in the regions of the US. I wish that red team and blue team could swap some c/overt methods so that we had more competitive balance at the state and local levels. I say that because big city blue team mayors become stupid and farcical when they don't have to fight off any natural predators, and farm state red team legislatures are literally bottom-feeding facebook boomers applying the monopoly on violence against all the engagement bait that they fall for.

>>5555

>>5555 I don't think there's a anything that can help that besides the kind of electoral and corruption reform that makes more parties incrementally more viable. The talent is always going to rise to federal level where the money and power is better.

I don't think there's a anything that can help that besides the kind of electoral and corruption reform that makes more parties incrementally more viable. The talent is always going to rise to federal level where the money and power is better.

A lot of it wasn’t astroturf. The subreddit really is that partisan. I remember a post after Vance was announced as VP “I'm impressed at how viscerally J.D. Vance is scaring the hoes” a low effort and already dated redscare reference, that was the post of the day on that subreddit. They were doing their part for the campaign. What seems astroturfed now, we have the same post of that signer who is also a prostitute insulting Anna on twitter on the front page of the subreddit. 4,000 upvotes, almost unheard of for redscare, and now reposted with 2,200 in the same slot as the last one. Pic unrelated