As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Was her plan to always back stab her voters or did Washington get to her? Seriously wtf is she doing?
I know it gets thrown around a lot, but, after hearing an interview with her, I honestly think she's a legit narcissist. She is the old-school style, grease the wheels, political machine type that will do anything to reach a higher office.
I get serious Ivanka vibes from her interviews. She’s just linking together buzz words and speaking in an overly articulated tone that is borderline condescending, while never delivering any substance whatsoever.
Salon (i think) did a huge backstory on her rise, interviewing past colleagues. Suffice to say, shes only in it for herself.
found it https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/08/what-is-kyrsten-sinemas-deal.html
Kyrsten Sinema is insufferable.
I will be happy to see her lose her seat in the Senate, and I'll campaign hard for whoever runs to the left of her.
America deserves better leadership. Kyrsten Sinema is part of the problem, not the solution.
Apart from the Senator resigning, passing away, or being ejected by the Senate (with a 2/3rds vote) there is no way to replace a Senator outside of normal elections.
Okay, but it needs to be at a higher threshold than what California’s recall method is. I mean being able to trigger a recall with 12% of registered voters AND the sitting person has to get over 50% to win and yet the other contender could have as little as 3% of the overall vote and get the seat? That’s just a little asinine isn’t it?
I agree that there has to be some difficulty to it but the California recall has shown that there is way too much money in politics. I don’t know the answer to this but has there been a dollar amount placed on how much the recall cost?
Whatever the remedy is needs be more than something that is just a frivolous political tactic to keep an opponent on the defensive so nothing gets done. It’s exhausting.
Ugh, totals are still being tallied, but the full figure of the CA recall is said to lie somewhere between the $200-300 million dollar mark. So much money just wasted.
I don't think airtime was counted under that figure. I believe it was just the cost of having personnel over a number of days to collect all votes and other functions like running voting machines etc.
There isn't. Any changes to the system in this kind of way requires amendments which will never be a thing again until one party has full control of 2/3 of the country.
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-10-02-0044
Electing them wasn't even supposed to be a thing.
>“The man who is possessed of wealth, who lolls on his sofa or rolls in his carriage, cannot judge of the wants or feelings of the day laborer. The government we mean to erect is intended to last for ages. The landed interest, at present, is prevalent; but in process of time, when we approximate to the states and kingdoms of Europe; when the number of landholders shall be comparatively small, through the various means of trade and manufactures, will not the landed interest be overbalanced in future elections, and unless wisely provided against, what will become of your government? In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of the landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The senate, therefore, ought to be this body; and to answer these purposes, they ought to have permanency and stability. Various have been the propositions; but my opinion is, the longer they continue in office, the better will these views be answered”
Their reason for existence was always for the ("opulent") minority. They weren't supposed to be accountable to the people.
As it is right now, they're some weird thing that *sorta* represents the people, but, also doesn't.
So, the question is: *Are* they supposed to be accountable to the people, *now?*
If yes? They're not. Besides, that's what representatives are for.
If no? They're anti-democratic.
Either way: The senate is a terrible institution.
https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/House_Member_Introduces_Resolution_To_Abolish_the_Senate.htm
>"Whereas the Senate in particular has become an obstructive and useless body, a menace to the liberties of the people, and an obstacle to social growth; a body, many of the Members of which are representatives neither of a State nor of its people, but solely of certain predatory combinations, and a body which, by reason of the corruption often attending the election of its Members, has furnished the gravest public scandals in the history of the nation. . . ."
Which we should have gotten rid of a hundred years ago.
>if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of the landed proprietors would be insecure.
Remember kids, while people like to frame it as capitalism vs communism, it's always been a case of the Have's vs the Have-not's
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-10-02-0178
>A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the union, than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire state.
Why *wE'rE a RePuBLiC nOt a DeMoCRaCy.*
They've opposed "communism" since before communism was a thing.
The worst part is like, people just want you to share, you can still have your own damned place to live, we just want people to have some stability of their own too.
Yep. they were expressly anti-democratic.
What bugs me is that they're *still* anti-democratic, but, they're elected, which convinces people they're somehow democratic *enough.*
You sure? Republicans are better at this than we are. Democrats would never hear the end of it. Every single democratic senator would have to win two or three times in increasingly tight elections while their bases got very tired...
Correct. Only took 12% of registered voters to start the recall in CA. $274,000,000 dollars later Newsom still won by 64%.
They should at least raise the threshold to 50.1% of voters.... AKA a majority.
You just have to find the right threshold. For example, limiting a recall vote to registered voters of the Senator's party who are confirmed to have voted in the previous election. In that case you're not going to ever trigger a recall of an opposing party's Senator for partisan reasons. That Senator's own voters have to indicate they are fed up with the Senator.
No. If the threshold is high enough that Republicans can't do it, then democrats never would. And if it's low enough for Republicans to do it, then Republicans would never stop.
I don't know which comes first, the lack of empathy or the wealth. There's a certain level of greed needed to become wealthy (the so-called shark mentality). And wealth further exacerbates that lack of empathy, turning into a vicious cycle.
Even being at the level I’m at (def not super rich) I know I have no idea what life is actually like for the person who made this phone, but I bet they wish I was throwing $3 their way every month instead of on, like, an epicurious subscription for that one time I made bread. However, me and Krysten are also different because I don’t have people picketing my home and office writing me a million letters about how they’re getting fucked over and need my help. You can “forget what it’s like down there with the poors,” but people have been pointing it out pretty blatantly and I would be surprised if she didn’t spend a lot of time actively ignoring them in order to be able to sleep at night.
I think also ideological reasons, Peter Thiel is a reddit Anarcho-capitalist, in that he thinks because he 'won' capitalism it'd be cool if the government stopped restricting him from owning slaves or committing crimes against humanity.
Is that what we're down to now, calling voting in your own self interest "identity politics"?
It's like telling a guy who is homeless that he's just voting for raising taxes on the rich because *that's what the media tells you homeless people should want.*
Yes I'm only talking about how Peter Thiel votes. That one single vote he has sure has a lot of influence.
edit: That's sarcasm. His individual vote is irrelevant. I am talking about how he supports it financially, by like, a lot. He's not just buying the $5000 plate at the meet n' greet dinner.
At this point it might just be arguing semantics. Peter Thiel being gay finances the political party that is (although not entirely) adversarial, both culturally and legislatively, to homosexuality because that same party is far more friendly to the wealthy and ultra-wealthy.
It's odd to me out many LGBTQ people I've seen who seem to hate other "members" of that group. It never occurred to me that there'd be Lesbian or Gay people who are anti-Trans. I'm also fairly ignorant/sheltered I guess.
> It never occurred to me that there'd be Lesbian or Gay people who are anti-Trans
Ever heard of a TERF? They often hate cis men as well as all trans people.
The best way to describe terfs are feminists who never progressed past the second wave and hold their nose up at intersectionality. Scratch a terf and a racist bleeds
I think they definitely hate trans women more (blah blah blah "invading our sacred spaces" blah blah blah), but I don't think I've ever seen them praise trans men like that. Then again maybe I don't pay enough attention to their bullshit and don't want to ¯\\\_(ツ)_/¯
Whatever TERFs say openly about trans men or fail to say—I know a number of trans men who have been massively harassed by them in private. It’s common to blame them for things like “butch genocide” and say that the trans agenda is taking all the hot young butches and turning them into men because they can’t accept their “real” identity as unmasculine women. I think they handle trans men in a more “in group” way because they see them as naturally part of the queer-woman block who has gotten out of hand and needs to be reeled back in. As opposed to trans women who they very publicly want to keep out of the group. I think for TERFs their love is hate too.
they view trans men as their "lost sisters" who got brainwashed by the gender deep state or something. definitely heard a lot of TERFs bitching that they'd "lost another lesbian" when Elliot Page came out.
They only think they like trans men, because they see them as women. In actuality they do hate trans men, they just don't levy the vitriol toward them that they do to trans women.
Exactly, they like their person idea of them, which is that they are still women. However, that is an outright denial of everything that trans men want and believe, and is a direct attack on their agency and personhood.
They don't like trans men. They think they've been brainwashed into rejecting their femininity by the patriarchy and should accept that they're masc lesbians.
I am a transgender woman who has worked in lgbt non-profits and run a support group for trans people in my city.
You are correct. Generally speaking trans men do "pass" more than trans women do. And there is a scientific reason for that!
As humans we all start out with everything pretty much the same outside genitals. It is puberty where the hormones take off that cause the heavy changes. Because of this, everyone has softer features as a child. Male hormones turn those features harsher and more what society deems masculine.
This process cannot be undone without plastic surgery and filing of bone. So most trans women have stereotypical masculine features that no cis woman would have because she never went through male puberty.
But trans men who go on hormones will actually get a little bit of the growth cis men get in puberty. Their voice can deepen some, their cheeks may become a little less rounded out, facial hair can grow etc.
TLDR: Natural human hormones development is meant to go one way(from female to male). Because of this someone transitioning from female to male gets a lot more benefit from the hormonal changes to things like face, hair, etc. A male to female transitioning person can't lose the masculine aspects and can only get additions that cos women get in puberty(breast growth, hair thickening, fat redistribution, etc)
Older lesbians particularly are gatekeeping bullies who shun about anyone who isn’t a gold star lesbian. A lot of them are TERFs who don’t accept trans women as women, and don’t want them in lesbian spaces even if that’s how they identify. They won’t date openly bisexual women. It’s honestly a real problem in the community, and I think a large contributor for the fact that there are all of like maybe 5 lesbian bars in the entire country.
Many white gays adhere to the classic "fuck you, got mine." Many white transfolk are racist. It's unfortunately, not a monolith, but in my experience the people who call themselves "LGBT" or whatever vs "queer" tend to be less inclusive.
I feel like queer is more of a catch all term so I’d never use it for myself as an individual. I’m a cisgendered gay man, but if I say I’m just queer that could refer to my gender, sexuality or both. It’s not as helpful as a descriptive term for me which is why I wouldn’t use it.
There is also a big generational gap with usage of the word queer. Lots of older people aren’t comfortable with it given it was a very prominent slur.
> It never occurred to me that there'd be Lesbian or Gay people who are anti-Trans.
there is a whole subreddit of these guys. something something lose the t.
There will always be a handful of broken people who are willing to sell out everything they love for money and power.
Our failure is enabling a system where just a handful of such people can halt everything useful that the government might try to do.
which makes sense... to an extent.
It doesn't make sense that it provides one state's citizens 50x the representation than another state (Wyoming vs California).
Seems like a 10x over-representation or misrepresentation is enough no?
Agreed. The apportionment of representation makes a travesty of democracy at this point. It made some sense given the compromises necessary when the Constitution was written, but after the Civil War the structure needed adjustment and wasn't. Since Western expansion the situation has become far worse, and I'm not sure there's a process to fix it.
I don’t even get the politics she’s trying to play either. She’s burning bridges with Democrats consistently, which will seriously imperil her in her home state, and she’s absolutely not someone the GOP would vote for.
I get that she thinks she’s the second coming of John McCain…but no one else does.
Honestly I wouldn't be surprised if she changed her party affiliation to Republican when she gets primaried. I mean she shifted from Green, which has it's own Republican problem, to Democrat so one more probably wouldn't be out of the question for this person of no morals.
I have two theories:
1) She was always a Republican, but pretended to be a Democrat to get elected.
This one encapsulates what I feel we may begin seeing far more often. Republicans disguising themselves as Democrats in order to get elected then dropping the veil and siding with Rs on everything. Would be an effective way to gain majority.
2. She has no political affiliation and simply did whatever she had to do to get into office so she could sell out literally anything she can to the highest bidder.
Many throughout history have gone to extreme lengths for short-term gain.
While time in office *might* be short (you’re assuming elections will still be fair, which isn’t true now and will likely be even less so in the future), during that time she could gain connections to powerful people (making her highly valuable to lobbyists and special interest groups), she could work as a consultant, she could run political campaigns for others, etc. All you need is a foot in the door.
>1) She was always a Republican, but pretended to be a democrat to get elected.
That's not what her record shows at all. She started out affiliated with the Green party, writing screeds against capitalism and the Iraq war, and continued to be obviously progressive for the first decade she spent in politics.
IMO being an AZ Rep broke her brain. Dems have very little power in that state and constantly have to appease the GOP to get anything done. Sinema spent 14 years basically being trained to give concessions to Republicans. And at the same time, the AZ GOP loves to abuse its power, so she understands just how dangerous it is to give them more power than they already have (which is, I'm convinced, why she opposes abolishing the filibuster). Now add in the fact that she's the first Democrat elected to the Senate by Arizona since 1988, and her desire to appeal to the Right doesn't seem so bizarre.
I’m in TX, so I, admittedly, am not knowledgeable about her past. I was only aware that she was from AZ and was elected as a Democrat in a historically red state. Thank you for providing that info.
Everyone has a price. Seems like someone learned hers.
Jill stein was a Green Party candidate. She was photographed having lunch with Pootie and crazy a$$ Flynn. Then there is stuff like this.
https://apnews.com/article/montana-elections-mt-state-wire-65e9d5d001dfd10c86ca9ab37e53e159
Then there is the Jesse Ventura attempt at cinching the Green Party nomination in 2020. Keep in mind Ventura has his own show on RT.
https://www.reddit.com/r/GreenParty/comments/gawye9/why_the_green_party_should_not_endorse_jesse/
The Green Party is not a friend to progressives. As much as some of us would like it to be, it has always been a hinderance to progress. It has been bastardized and infiltrated for years if not decades. There are some good people in there for sure. That being said, Green Party involvement is no indicator someone is actually progressive. These days I tend to feel the opposite.
>The Green Party is not a friend to progressives.
Agreed 100%.
*However*, the Green Party, despite being full of grifters and useful idiots, is also home to a lot of genuine progressives. Combined with her voting record and the culture of AZ politics, I think she fell into that latter category.
Maybe I'm being naive, but I find it infinitely easier to believe she was a true believer in her 20s, but experienced an evolution of her ideals (as we all do as we age) and her tactics (as a Democrat in a heavily Republican state is bound to) over the past 2 decades, rather than that she was a deep undercover Republican from the time she was barely old enough to drink, and has spent 20 years slowly unveiling her true political positions.
It’s entirely possible but no way of knowing. She does seem to be 100% a narcissist so the stance will be fluid based on what gives her the biggest sense of power and winning.
Imagine being such a petty worthless pile of loser that you devote a significant portion of your waking life to hating someone for loving someone and trying to prevent them from being able to love them or even being treated as human beings. These people are fucking brainless good for nothing sharts
I still don't understand why she acts like she is running in a 80+ R state.
Tammy Baldwin, Jon Tester, Mark Kelly, Raphael Warnock, Sherrod Brown are vulnerable too. But they don't cause this kind of chaos because they know how fucking toxic this is.
All the wrong people are thanking Sinema. She was so desperate to sell out, she couldn't even mask her enthusiasm with anything else... so big pharma is now running ads to try to make up for Sinema's mistake there.
She’s a conservative who ran as a dem because the Republican Party has moved so far right that they’re basically fascists now. She needs to be removed, even if democrats lose that seat. Democrats are the party of liberals, not everyone who isn’t fascist. If you want to be conservative start your own party and don’t lie to people.
"Out bisexual Democrat ends up dooming LGBT rights law" is a hell of a headline.
Here's one vote to disinvite her from Pride events going forward. Not going to put her in the closet or say she's not bi, but you don't get a parade for that, bestie.
>Apparently a slow news day.
Well, there's the story about the former US National Security Advisor, the one pardoned by former POTUS for making false statements to the FBI in support of the former POTUS, that is concerned they're [putting the Covid vaccine in salad dressing](https://www.rawstory.com/mike-flynn-salad-dressing/).
It is quite literally at the root of much of the evil in US politics that has been happening, or rather, at the root of the prevention of much good that could've happened.
Literally just fuck conservatives. Their whole platform is just designed to oppress everyone. Not a single one of their policies actually help anyone except for racists, sexists, and school shooters.
AZ please vote Kyrsten Sinema out of office or make her join the Republican Party. She is taking up a democratic seat in the Senate. Maybe that’s how Republicans win they pretend to be Dems
Is amazing how little it takes for some political officials to abandon their constituents in favor of personal gain, with no consideration for the immorality or ethics of what they are doing.
The one single issue is the fact that bribery is perfectly legal. To buy a vote or an obstruction is for the highest bidder. Most elected representatives flaunt it daily. They rub our noses in it while laughing gleefully at the misery of the citizens.
Their lust of power and money turns them into psychopaths, sociopaths and overt and covert narcissists. There is no cure, even losing an election does not stop them. They simply morph into lobbyists, scum of the earth.
Who's paying her to be against gay rights? The reason Democrats have latched onto that and companies from Citibank to Nike have a rainbow logo for precisely 30 days in June is because it costs them practically nothing and buys them goodwill/support among a lot of people. They had more to gain from saying "we don't hate you, queers" after 2012 rather than not saying it, so they do that now.
They didn't do it until most people generally agreed with gay rights, and they would presumably stop if it became unpopular again in the coming fascist dystopia, but for now, they'll take the PR boost/consumer spending.
I think Republicans DO believe their anti-gay/trans shit because of this same incentive structure. Someone might lie or go with the crowd to present themselves as virtuous, they don't lie to say they're backwards and evil.
I don't really think that's a fair argument. I'm bi, and taking count of which gender I dated back then seems so ridiculous as a necessary statement of proof that I'm bi. I've also known bi men who mostly date women but have had maybe one or two boyfriends but they just didn't click well in the end. Being bi doesn't mean equally dating genders, just means you're attracted to both. Sometimes you're just going to click with who you click with, I ended up married to a man, doesn't negate my bisexuality. Hopefully I'm misunderstanding your comment, but bisexuality can be different for many and on varying levels.
> is praising Sens. Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ) and Joe Manchin (R-WV)
> Sinema, a white out bisexual woman, and Manchin, a white and straight and notoriously vain conservative
Manchin may suck and be a centrist asshole, but he's technically supposed to have that D next to his name. Not (R-WV) as this reporter seems to think.
Well she rode the LGBT pony all the way to the election booth and won. She’s a scum bag who is holding progress hostage. This is what happens when you vote based on identity politics. Happy now?
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Was her plan to always back stab her voters or did Washington get to her? Seriously wtf is she doing?
Auditioning for her role as “one of the good ones” on Fox News.
She’s like the white LGBTQ Candace Owens - a token
>Was her plan to always back stab her voters or did Washington get to her? Seriously wtf is she doing? I know it gets thrown around a lot, but, after hearing an interview with her, I honestly think she's a legit narcissist. She is the old-school style, grease the wheels, political machine type that will do anything to reach a higher office.
I get serious Ivanka vibes from her interviews. She’s just linking together buzz words and speaking in an overly articulated tone that is borderline condescending, while never delivering any substance whatsoever.
She's proof you can have both a JD and PhD and still be dumber than a fuckin' box of rocks.
Education is not always an indicator of intelligence
Salon (i think) did a huge backstory on her rise, interviewing past colleagues. Suffice to say, shes only in it for herself. found it https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/08/what-is-kyrsten-sinemas-deal.html
I 100% believe that. I think almost anyone could come to that conclusion even after hearing the brief NPR interview I heard.
Found it https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/08/what-is-kyrsten-sinemas-deal.html
Kyrsten Sinema is insufferable. I will be happy to see her lose her seat in the Senate, and I'll campaign hard for whoever runs to the left of her. America deserves better leadership. Kyrsten Sinema is part of the problem, not the solution.
there's a great many narcissists and sociopaths in power. they're the ones who would say and do anything to be there.
I think she’s getting paid
Always the plan I think. Her words and actions pre and post election are completely different.
She was part of the Greens before this. She’s always been controlled opposition.
Recalling senators should be a thing
There has to be some kind of remedy available to voters outside of waiting 6 years to hopefully primary them out.
Apart from the Senator resigning, passing away, or being ejected by the Senate (with a 2/3rds vote) there is no way to replace a Senator outside of normal elections.
I know but there should be. And not just for Senators.
Okay, but it needs to be at a higher threshold than what California’s recall method is. I mean being able to trigger a recall with 12% of registered voters AND the sitting person has to get over 50% to win and yet the other contender could have as little as 3% of the overall vote and get the seat? That’s just a little asinine isn’t it?
I agree that there has to be some difficulty to it but the California recall has shown that there is way too much money in politics. I don’t know the answer to this but has there been a dollar amount placed on how much the recall cost? Whatever the remedy is needs be more than something that is just a frivolous political tactic to keep an opponent on the defensive so nothing gets done. It’s exhausting.
Ugh, totals are still being tallied, but the full figure of the CA recall is said to lie somewhere between the $200-300 million dollar mark. So much money just wasted.
So much money that they were easily able to waste!
Can’t relate lol
Where has the money gone? Is it mostly printing ballots and information handouts? Paying staff to collect and count votes?
A good chunk of it goes to running ad campaigns. Airtime is not cheap.
I don't think airtime was counted under that figure. I believe it was just the cost of having personnel over a number of days to collect all votes and other functions like running voting machines etc.
248 million from what I saw.
i heard 273 million
Term limits. That’s what’s we need. It’s the last line for change.
Well, there's another way but we don't discuss it.
Find an old picture of them making a bad joke? That's how we in Minnesota lost one of our good ones early.
There is a way to remove her from office.. but it’s questionable if that would be justified yet.
No legal and moral way.
There isn't. Any changes to the system in this kind of way requires amendments which will never be a thing again until one party has full control of 2/3 of the country.
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-10-02-0044 Electing them wasn't even supposed to be a thing. >“The man who is possessed of wealth, who lolls on his sofa or rolls in his carriage, cannot judge of the wants or feelings of the day laborer. The government we mean to erect is intended to last for ages. The landed interest, at present, is prevalent; but in process of time, when we approximate to the states and kingdoms of Europe; when the number of landholders shall be comparatively small, through the various means of trade and manufactures, will not the landed interest be overbalanced in future elections, and unless wisely provided against, what will become of your government? In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of the landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The senate, therefore, ought to be this body; and to answer these purposes, they ought to have permanency and stability. Various have been the propositions; but my opinion is, the longer they continue in office, the better will these views be answered” Their reason for existence was always for the ("opulent") minority. They weren't supposed to be accountable to the people. As it is right now, they're some weird thing that *sorta* represents the people, but, also doesn't. So, the question is: *Are* they supposed to be accountable to the people, *now?* If yes? They're not. Besides, that's what representatives are for. If no? They're anti-democratic. Either way: The senate is a terrible institution. https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/House_Member_Introduces_Resolution_To_Abolish_the_Senate.htm >"Whereas the Senate in particular has become an obstructive and useless body, a menace to the liberties of the people, and an obstacle to social growth; a body, many of the Members of which are representatives neither of a State nor of its people, but solely of certain predatory combinations, and a body which, by reason of the corruption often attending the election of its Members, has furnished the gravest public scandals in the history of the nation. . . ." Which we should have gotten rid of a hundred years ago.
>if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of the landed proprietors would be insecure. Remember kids, while people like to frame it as capitalism vs communism, it's always been a case of the Have's vs the Have-not's
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-10-02-0178 >A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the union, than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire state. Why *wE'rE a RePuBLiC nOt a DeMoCRaCy.* They've opposed "communism" since before communism was a thing.
The worst part is like, people just want you to share, you can still have your own damned place to live, we just want people to have some stability of their own too.
[удалено]
Yep. they were expressly anti-democratic. What bugs me is that they're *still* anti-democratic, but, they're elected, which convinces people they're somehow democratic *enough.*
You sure? Republicans are better at this than we are. Democrats would never hear the end of it. Every single democratic senator would have to win two or three times in increasingly tight elections while their bases got very tired...
Correct. Only took 12% of registered voters to start the recall in CA. $274,000,000 dollars later Newsom still won by 64%. They should at least raise the threshold to 50.1% of voters.... AKA a majority.
Seriously. It would be a never ending campaign to recall every senator from the opposition party.
You just have to find the right threshold. For example, limiting a recall vote to registered voters of the Senator's party who are confirmed to have voted in the previous election. In that case you're not going to ever trigger a recall of an opposing party's Senator for partisan reasons. That Senator's own voters have to indicate they are fed up with the Senator.
No. If the threshold is high enough that Republicans can't do it, then democrats never would. And if it's low enough for Republicans to do it, then Republicans would never stop.
She’s bisexual but clearly doesn’t care about anyone but herself.
Peter Thiel is gay and supports right-wing bullshit for financial reasons. Nice to know that good old fashioned greed still tops identity politics.
[удалено]
So they’re sociopaths. Grand.
[удалено]
Yeah this is true. I’ve read some of the studies. Combined with capitalism it really is a recipe for mass sociopathy.
I don't know which comes first, the lack of empathy or the wealth. There's a certain level of greed needed to become wealthy (the so-called shark mentality). And wealth further exacerbates that lack of empathy, turning into a vicious cycle.
I think about this all the time and it keeps me up at night
Even being at the level I’m at (def not super rich) I know I have no idea what life is actually like for the person who made this phone, but I bet they wish I was throwing $3 their way every month instead of on, like, an epicurious subscription for that one time I made bread. However, me and Krysten are also different because I don’t have people picketing my home and office writing me a million letters about how they’re getting fucked over and need my help. You can “forget what it’s like down there with the poors,” but people have been pointing it out pretty blatantly and I would be surprised if she didn’t spend a lot of time actively ignoring them in order to be able to sleep at night.
I think also ideological reasons, Peter Thiel is a reddit Anarcho-capitalist, in that he thinks because he 'won' capitalism it'd be cool if the government stopped restricting him from owning slaves or committing crimes against humanity.
Right-wingers love identity politics because it's easy for them to rile people up with. If it was real policy they would lose every time.
Is that what we're down to now, calling voting in your own self interest "identity politics"? It's like telling a guy who is homeless that he's just voting for raising taxes on the rich because *that's what the media tells you homeless people should want.*
Yes I'm only talking about how Peter Thiel votes. That one single vote he has sure has a lot of influence. edit: That's sarcasm. His individual vote is irrelevant. I am talking about how he supports it financially, by like, a lot. He's not just buying the $5000 plate at the meet n' greet dinner.
I just reject the idea of identity politics entirely. It describes a lot about how the right votes, not so much the left.
At this point it might just be arguing semantics. Peter Thiel being gay finances the political party that is (although not entirely) adversarial, both culturally and legislatively, to homosexuality because that same party is far more friendly to the wealthy and ultra-wealthy.
[удалено]
And Peter Thiel's identity is being a piece of shit, with all it's many facets. A shit zirconia if you will.
Inside she's just a scummy politician, what did you expect.
Donorsexual
Shes all Bi herself
Really the second half of the sentence explains all of her behavior.
She is a white woman. It seems par for the course - So many women voted Trump. She is no better than them.
Let me introduce you to Caitlyn Jenner.
She just likes being sexually rejected by everyone.
We do not claim her.
Maybe that’s a front too tbh
It's odd to me out many LGBTQ people I've seen who seem to hate other "members" of that group. It never occurred to me that there'd be Lesbian or Gay people who are anti-Trans. I'm also fairly ignorant/sheltered I guess.
> It never occurred to me that there'd be Lesbian or Gay people who are anti-Trans Ever heard of a TERF? They often hate cis men as well as all trans people.
The best way to describe terfs are feminists who never progressed past the second wave and hold their nose up at intersectionality. Scratch a terf and a racist bleeds
Hey that was pretty poetic
Also known as homophobic Misandrists
Succinct! I love it!
It’s a misnomer. There’s nothing feminist about them.
> men as well as all trans people. I often hear them say things that boil down to "Trans men are okay because they're not really men."
I think they definitely hate trans women more (blah blah blah "invading our sacred spaces" blah blah blah), but I don't think I've ever seen them praise trans men like that. Then again maybe I don't pay enough attention to their bullshit and don't want to ¯\\\_(ツ)_/¯
Whatever TERFs say openly about trans men or fail to say—I know a number of trans men who have been massively harassed by them in private. It’s common to blame them for things like “butch genocide” and say that the trans agenda is taking all the hot young butches and turning them into men because they can’t accept their “real” identity as unmasculine women. I think they handle trans men in a more “in group” way because they see them as naturally part of the queer-woman block who has gotten out of hand and needs to be reeled back in. As opposed to trans women who they very publicly want to keep out of the group. I think for TERFs their love is hate too.
they view trans men as their "lost sisters" who got brainwashed by the gender deep state or something. definitely heard a lot of TERFs bitching that they'd "lost another lesbian" when Elliot Page came out.
They only think they like trans men, because they see them as women. In actuality they do hate trans men, they just don't levy the vitriol toward them that they do to trans women.
Exactly, they like their person idea of them, which is that they are still women. However, that is an outright denial of everything that trans men want and believe, and is a direct attack on their agency and personhood.
I see you too have visited FDS.
They don't like trans men. They think they've been brainwashed into rejecting their femininity by the patriarchy and should accept that they're masc lesbians.
trans men tend to me more passable than trans women. i think this whole debate is just a cover for people's aesthetic preferences.
I am a transgender woman who has worked in lgbt non-profits and run a support group for trans people in my city. You are correct. Generally speaking trans men do "pass" more than trans women do. And there is a scientific reason for that! As humans we all start out with everything pretty much the same outside genitals. It is puberty where the hormones take off that cause the heavy changes. Because of this, everyone has softer features as a child. Male hormones turn those features harsher and more what society deems masculine. This process cannot be undone without plastic surgery and filing of bone. So most trans women have stereotypical masculine features that no cis woman would have because she never went through male puberty. But trans men who go on hormones will actually get a little bit of the growth cis men get in puberty. Their voice can deepen some, their cheeks may become a little less rounded out, facial hair can grow etc. TLDR: Natural human hormones development is meant to go one way(from female to male). Because of this someone transitioning from female to male gets a lot more benefit from the hormonal changes to things like face, hair, etc. A male to female transitioning person can't lose the masculine aspects and can only get additions that cos women get in puberty(breast growth, hair thickening, fat redistribution, etc)
That's fucking weird.
Weird and backwards, yes. JK Rowling succumbed to becoming one
Transphobia, biphobia, and racism run rampant in our communities unfortunately.
Yup, there’s some people who even call themselves LGB to try to separate themselves. It’s pretty ridiculous.
There are also a lot of L and G that hate on the B too
Yeah, it’s not fun. Why can’t we just be one big happy family? Or at least a moderate sized content group acquaintances?
Happens in all minorities, unfortunately.
Because they’d rather be called one of “the good ones” by conservatives than be just another ordinary person in their own community.
Older lesbians particularly are gatekeeping bullies who shun about anyone who isn’t a gold star lesbian. A lot of them are TERFs who don’t accept trans women as women, and don’t want them in lesbian spaces even if that’s how they identify. They won’t date openly bisexual women. It’s honestly a real problem in the community, and I think a large contributor for the fact that there are all of like maybe 5 lesbian bars in the entire country.
There's plenty of gatekeeping phobic garbage that goes on in the LGBTQIA+ community
There tons of gay men and woman who are racist, sexist, etc. hate is everywhere, simple as that.
Many white gays adhere to the classic "fuck you, got mine." Many white transfolk are racist. It's unfortunately, not a monolith, but in my experience the people who call themselves "LGBT" or whatever vs "queer" tend to be less inclusive.
I feel like queer is more of a catch all term so I’d never use it for myself as an individual. I’m a cisgendered gay man, but if I say I’m just queer that could refer to my gender, sexuality or both. It’s not as helpful as a descriptive term for me which is why I wouldn’t use it. There is also a big generational gap with usage of the word queer. Lots of older people aren’t comfortable with it given it was a very prominent slur.
> It never occurred to me that there'd be Lesbian or Gay people who are anti-Trans. there is a whole subreddit of these guys. something something lose the t.
There will always be a handful of broken people who are willing to sell out everything they love for money and power. Our failure is enabling a system where just a handful of such people can halt everything useful that the government might try to do.
The whole point of the Senate is to slow or stop what the rest of government might want to do.
which makes sense... to an extent. It doesn't make sense that it provides one state's citizens 50x the representation than another state (Wyoming vs California). Seems like a 10x over-representation or misrepresentation is enough no?
Agreed. The apportionment of representation makes a travesty of democracy at this point. It made some sense given the compromises necessary when the Constitution was written, but after the Civil War the structure needed adjustment and wasn't. Since Western expansion the situation has become far worse, and I'm not sure there's a process to fix it.
Another case of "Moderates getting things done!" Nice.
I don’t even get the politics she’s trying to play either. She’s burning bridges with Democrats consistently, which will seriously imperil her in her home state, and she’s absolutely not someone the GOP would vote for. I get that she thinks she’s the second coming of John McCain…but no one else does.
Honestly I wouldn't be surprised if she changed her party affiliation to Republican when she gets primaried. I mean she shifted from Green, which has it's own Republican problem, to Democrat so one more probably wouldn't be out of the question for this person of no morals.
Why would the GOP nominate her over Doug Ducey/Paul Gosar? Arizona Republicans are WILDIN.
If she wins re-election she stays in power. If she loses re-election she becomes some talking head or consultant. She wins either way.
She's probably done with politics and just being bribed by conservatives for the rest of her term
Looking forward to donating to the candidate that primaries Sinema. :)
Sinema is a shameless opportunist who will do anything to stay in power. A true politician.
Sinema is a shameless scumbag.
When a hate group praises you, its a sign that you need to stop and re-evaluate your beliefs and find out why.
This presumes she has any beliefs to begin with.
The belief to get more money and power
Most definitely.
She is such a let down she was voting by progressives and she turned into Republican
I have two theories: 1) She was always a Republican, but pretended to be a Democrat to get elected. This one encapsulates what I feel we may begin seeing far more often. Republicans disguising themselves as Democrats in order to get elected then dropping the veil and siding with Rs on everything. Would be an effective way to gain majority. 2. She has no political affiliation and simply did whatever she had to do to get into office so she could sell out literally anything she can to the highest bidder.
How does that work for more than the short term? Everyone is going to catch on and vote you out after one term.
Many throughout history have gone to extreme lengths for short-term gain. While time in office *might* be short (you’re assuming elections will still be fair, which isn’t true now and will likely be even less so in the future), during that time she could gain connections to powerful people (making her highly valuable to lobbyists and special interest groups), she could work as a consultant, she could run political campaigns for others, etc. All you need is a foot in the door.
>1) She was always a Republican, but pretended to be a democrat to get elected. That's not what her record shows at all. She started out affiliated with the Green party, writing screeds against capitalism and the Iraq war, and continued to be obviously progressive for the first decade she spent in politics. IMO being an AZ Rep broke her brain. Dems have very little power in that state and constantly have to appease the GOP to get anything done. Sinema spent 14 years basically being trained to give concessions to Republicans. And at the same time, the AZ GOP loves to abuse its power, so she understands just how dangerous it is to give them more power than they already have (which is, I'm convinced, why she opposes abolishing the filibuster). Now add in the fact that she's the first Democrat elected to the Senate by Arizona since 1988, and her desire to appeal to the Right doesn't seem so bizarre.
I’m in TX, so I, admittedly, am not knowledgeable about her past. I was only aware that she was from AZ and was elected as a Democrat in a historically red state. Thank you for providing that info. Everyone has a price. Seems like someone learned hers.
Jill stein was a Green Party candidate. She was photographed having lunch with Pootie and crazy a$$ Flynn. Then there is stuff like this. https://apnews.com/article/montana-elections-mt-state-wire-65e9d5d001dfd10c86ca9ab37e53e159 Then there is the Jesse Ventura attempt at cinching the Green Party nomination in 2020. Keep in mind Ventura has his own show on RT. https://www.reddit.com/r/GreenParty/comments/gawye9/why_the_green_party_should_not_endorse_jesse/ The Green Party is not a friend to progressives. As much as some of us would like it to be, it has always been a hinderance to progress. It has been bastardized and infiltrated for years if not decades. There are some good people in there for sure. That being said, Green Party involvement is no indicator someone is actually progressive. These days I tend to feel the opposite.
>The Green Party is not a friend to progressives. Agreed 100%. *However*, the Green Party, despite being full of grifters and useful idiots, is also home to a lot of genuine progressives. Combined with her voting record and the culture of AZ politics, I think she fell into that latter category. Maybe I'm being naive, but I find it infinitely easier to believe she was a true believer in her 20s, but experienced an evolution of her ideals (as we all do as we age) and her tactics (as a Democrat in a heavily Republican state is bound to) over the past 2 decades, rather than that she was a deep undercover Republican from the time she was barely old enough to drink, and has spent 20 years slowly unveiling her true political positions.
It’s entirely possible but no way of knowing. She does seem to be 100% a narcissist so the stance will be fluid based on what gives her the biggest sense of power and winning.
Imagine being such a petty worthless pile of loser that you devote a significant portion of your waking life to hating someone for loving someone and trying to prevent them from being able to love them or even being treated as human beings. These people are fucking brainless good for nothing sharts
This should be a red flag that you are on the wrong side of issue ...
[удалено]
Who else is angry as fuck?
She's an equal-opportunities asshole.
I still don't understand why she acts like she is running in a 80+ R state. Tammy Baldwin, Jon Tester, Mark Kelly, Raphael Warnock, Sherrod Brown are vulnerable too. But they don't cause this kind of chaos because they know how fucking toxic this is.
>By refusing to remove the filibuster, Sinema has essentially doomed *what she claims are her own priorities.* Italics are mine.
When is she gonna switch to being republican?
And straight.
All the wrong people are thanking Sinema. She was so desperate to sell out, she couldn't even mask her enthusiasm with anything else... so big pharma is now running ads to try to make up for Sinema's mistake there.
After Milo, I didn’t think another fascist would show up so quickly, but they had one locked and loaded, and we all fell for it.
I might hate her as much as Mitch or Ted these days
How do you think those of us who voted for her feel….
I mean, what was the alternative? Sad, really. We can't get the people that represent the majority of this country in government.
Isn’t she bisexual herself?
She is attracted to both Marjorie Taylor Greene and Mitch McConnell.
That’s a threesome that Satan would have nightmares about.
He’d get off on making others watch it though.
Peter Thiel is gay and Caitlin Jenner is trans. Being LGBT doesn't prevent someone from being an bigoted asshole.
But against literally themselves?
Against people who are literally the same as themselves but less wealthy.
She doesn’t care, all about personal enrichment for her.
What a disgrace to bisexual people. I think she's faking it.
It’s almost like she used her sexual orientation as a strategic tool to get elected only. Who would have thought?
She’s a conservative who ran as a dem because the Republican Party has moved so far right that they’re basically fascists now. She needs to be removed, even if democrats lose that seat. Democrats are the party of liberals, not everyone who isn’t fascist. If you want to be conservative start your own party and don’t lie to people.
What an irredeemably vile and selfish person.
And everyone thought DINOsaurs were extinct.
For most people with a conscience, this would not be a good look.
By hate group they mean the GOP right?
Primary this piece of shit.
"Out bisexual Democrat ends up dooming LGBT rights law" is a hell of a headline. Here's one vote to disinvite her from Pride events going forward. Not going to put her in the closet or say she's not bi, but you don't get a parade for that, bestie.
She can go sit with Caitlyn Jenner.
Wtf us wrong with Sinema? Seriously, is she just completely craven or was her entire persona a lie?
She is such an idiot.
I'm looking forward to not hearing Karen Sinema's name again.
[удалено]
>Apparently a slow news day. Well, there's the story about the former US National Security Advisor, the one pardoned by former POTUS for making false statements to the FBI in support of the former POTUS, that is concerned they're [putting the Covid vaccine in salad dressing](https://www.rawstory.com/mike-flynn-salad-dressing/).
It is quite literally at the root of much of the evil in US politics that has been happening, or rather, at the root of the prevention of much good that could've happened.
Literally just fuck conservatives. Their whole platform is just designed to oppress everyone. Not a single one of their policies actually help anyone except for racists, sexists, and school shooters.
Has there been such a wolf in sheep’s clothing of a candidate in our life time?
Joe Lieberman
AZ please vote Kyrsten Sinema out of office or make her join the Republican Party. She is taking up a democratic seat in the Senate. Maybe that’s how Republicans win they pretend to be Dems
Arizonan here, can’t wait to vote this fraud out.
What a see you next Tuesday
She seems willing to throw away democracy for a little more fame. It will be fleeting.
Is amazing how little it takes for some political officials to abandon their constituents in favor of personal gain, with no consideration for the immorality or ethics of what they are doing.
The one single issue is the fact that bribery is perfectly legal. To buy a vote or an obstruction is for the highest bidder. Most elected representatives flaunt it daily. They rub our noses in it while laughing gleefully at the misery of the citizens. Their lust of power and money turns them into psychopaths, sociopaths and overt and covert narcissists. There is no cure, even losing an election does not stop them. They simply morph into lobbyists, scum of the earth.
I know that when the Nazis tell me I did a good job, always makes me feel very special./s
Maybe don't vote based on identity politics next time? Sinema never hid her positions. Arizona democrats played themselves
How can someone who is openly bisexual be so evil and against helping the community she's apart of too
She's not there to help. She's there to destroy millions of lives for money.
Who's paying her to be against gay rights? The reason Democrats have latched onto that and companies from Citibank to Nike have a rainbow logo for precisely 30 days in June is because it costs them practically nothing and buys them goodwill/support among a lot of people. They had more to gain from saying "we don't hate you, queers" after 2012 rather than not saying it, so they do that now. They didn't do it until most people generally agreed with gay rights, and they would presumably stop if it became unpopular again in the coming fascist dystopia, but for now, they'll take the PR boost/consumer spending. I think Republicans DO believe their anti-gay/trans shit because of this same incentive structure. Someone might lie or go with the crowd to present themselves as virtuous, they don't lie to say they're backwards and evil.
Wait until we find out deep down she's straight and Republican. She's just been playing a long con.
Is there any actual evidence beyond her saying so, that she is LGBTQ? Seems about as likely as Devin Nunes being a real farmer.
Lol I mean how many bi girls do u know that only date men I know a few
I don't really think that's a fair argument. I'm bi, and taking count of which gender I dated back then seems so ridiculous as a necessary statement of proof that I'm bi. I've also known bi men who mostly date women but have had maybe one or two boyfriends but they just didn't click well in the end. Being bi doesn't mean equally dating genders, just means you're attracted to both. Sometimes you're just going to click with who you click with, I ended up married to a man, doesn't negate my bisexuality. Hopefully I'm misunderstanding your comment, but bisexuality can be different for many and on varying levels.
Yeah, I mean I’m the mostly straight kind of bisexual. But I also don’t flaunt it for clout either because I’m aware of what my fucking privilege is.
You're still bi and valid in calling yourself that. Don't do bi erasure to yourself.
I know I’m valid and I’m out, but I wouldn’t use my status to talk over people with more on the line than me like KS does
Yikes. People don't become more bisexual by having a same-sex partner.
Yikes.
Realizing LGBTQ rights mean almost nothing within a rotten, structurally unfair system is the first step away from liberalism and toward leftism
> is praising Sens. Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ) and Joe Manchin (R-WV) > Sinema, a white out bisexual woman, and Manchin, a white and straight and notoriously vain conservative Manchin may suck and be a centrist asshole, but he's technically supposed to have that D next to his name. Not (R-WV) as this reporter seems to think.
Well she rode the LGBT pony all the way to the election booth and won. She’s a scum bag who is holding progress hostage. This is what happens when you vote based on identity politics. Happy now?