this post was submitted on 20 Jul 2024
213 points (96.5% liked)

politics

19138 readers
5938 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 18 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] BroBot9000@lemmy.world 45 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Why is every shot of him up the nose? It’s as if the photographer is looking for a brain that isn’t there.

[–] Drusas@kbin.run 29 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Probably because his face is very round and they don't see that as masculine enough.

[–] wreckedcarzz@lemmy.world 12 points 3 months ago

Plus, can fit two cocks right in there. Free real estate. Look at all that space. Practically begging for it. When he says to get his good side, this is the result. This is peak anti-gay. So gay that your variable overflows and now your negative gay.

Basically, this dude probably sucks a lot of cocks. Just saying.

[–] InternetUser2012@lemmy.today 22 points 3 months ago (1 children)

He's gay. His internet history will be full of trans porn too

[–] HawlSera@lemm.ee 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

No not transporn, it'll be straight up his e621 account with all female/intersex images on black list, just men, manly men.

No really he writes in his auto-biography Hillbilly Elegy that he actually believed he was gay and begged his grandmother to convince him he was not.... Which is very heterosexual behavior.

Edit: What's with the downvotes? I'm not saying he's a bad person because he's gay, I'm saying he's a bad person because he'd rather criminalize homosexuality instead of admitting he wants to ride the dick train.

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

Idk he seems the sort to really hate the fact that he loves a bear with a vulva. Like an absolute man’s man who happens to be trans. Just calling it now, his hard drive at least contains some of that

[–] peopleproblems@lemmy.world 19 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Yeah I'm calling it now, after the whole racist stuff against his wife, and his earlier Trump criticism.

Trump isn't just going to use him to throw under the bus at some point. Trump is going to make an example out of him.

He and his family will be "purged from the party" (however they decide to do that, I really hope they don't go full Nazi but my hopes are dwindling daily). For every reason they despise.

And the GOP will go "what no way we couldn't see that coming."

And the rest of the world will be like "y'all really never heard about anything that happened in the 20th century?"

[–] kautau@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago

Yup, fascism always needs an enemy, the angry trumpets won’t stop just because he’s elected, the war with Eurasia must go on, and Vance will be a perfect person to feed to the dogs to think they keep winning

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 10 points 3 months ago (1 children)

JD Vance was known, at least in the State Department, for grilling nominees with a questionnaire about LGBTQ+ rights, Pride flags, diversity and inclusion, and other so-called “woke” issues,” part of a series of holds he placed on Biden nominees that delayed the confirmation of more than 30 diplomats to senior positions until this April.

“The publics of many of our allies, and those countries we seek to build stronger relationships with, have traditional Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or Hindu moral values,” reads one section of the questionnaire, which was obtained by The Washington Post. “If confirmed, how would you explain to them what the United States’ promoting ‘human rights for LGBTQ people’ would look like in their country?”

[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I can't tell if you're sticking up for him or not, but to answer his question: "We don't need to, because there is only one sect mentioned here that somehow bastardized their own religious texts into thinking 'gay=bad', and that's Southern US Bible thumpers."

[–] TheRealKuni@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Well that’s simply not true. It’s neither limited to the south nor the US nor Christianity. There are many worse places on earth to be LGBTQ than the US. There are also many better places on earth to be LGBTQ.

[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

Read his quote. He's trying to conflate societal norms with religions. They are not mutually exclusive, he's just up his own ass.

[–] kautau@lemmy.world 9 points 3 months ago (1 children)

“Anti-woke”

Oxford English Dictionary for woke:

Originally: well-informed, up-to-date. Now chiefly: alert to racial or social discrimination and injustice;

Then I tried to look up the definition for “progressive” in the OED

In any case, Google gave me:

(of a group, person, or idea) favoring or implementing social reform or new, liberal ideas

Followed by the antonym, regressive

becoming less advanced; returning to a former or less developed state

So, to make sure we’re all on the same page here, “anti-woke” means returning to a less developed state. And while that should be obvious to those who realize the right wants female homemakers, policies to end any LGBTQ+ rights, and a country with defined classism and racism, to many it’s just a tribalist sign post everyone supporting them wants to write their name on.

[–] barsquid@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

Yes. But Repubs don't think about what they are reading or writing. The propaganda gets them to attach that word with any other concept of the brainwashers' choice.

If you do a word association game with Repubs and toss out "woke" they will immediately say "mob." Some of them cannot even write or say "woke" alone without adding "mob," it is so ingrained.

You (correctly) imagine "woke" to be regarding awareness about discrimination and (likely) working to stop injustice. Repubs imagine "woke mob BLM Antifa invaders razing cities." Well, "raze," is probably above their reading comprehension level, but you get the idea.

[–] snausagesinablanket@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago

Total closet gay.

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 4 points 3 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


Before he was Donald Trump’s 2024 running mate, JD Vance was known, at least in the State Department, for grilling nominees with a questionnaire about LGBTQ+ rights, Pride flags, diversity and inclusion, and other so-called “woke” issues,” part of a series of holds he placed on Biden nominees that delayed the confirmation of more than 30 diplomats to senior positions until this April.

“The publics of many of our allies, and those countries we seek to build stronger relationships with, have traditional Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or Hindu moral values,” reads one section of the questionnaire, which was obtained by The Washington Post.

“If confirmed, how would you explain to them what the United States’ promoting ‘human rights for LGBTQ people’ would look like in their country?”

Vance are cut from the same anti-LGBTQ+ cloth and have made clear that, should they get the keys to the Oval Office, they will demolish America’s values on the world stage.”

“If you are injecting your own personal politics in a way that harms American national security and diplomacy, that’s not fine,” Vance told the outlet at the time.

In response to the Post report on the content of the questionnaire, and a headline referring to it as evidence of his “anti-woke ideology,” Vance wrote, “They got me,” on X on Saturday.


The original article contains 444 words, the summary contains 218 words. Saved 51%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] HawlSera@lemm.ee 2 points 3 months ago

I sincerely wonder if this guy may be THE reason Trump loses

[–] SulaymanF@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

“The publics of many of our allies, and those countries we seek to build stronger relationships with, have traditional Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or Hindu moral values,” reads one section of the questionnaire, which was obtained by The Washington Post. “If confirmed, how would you explain to them what the United States’ promoting ‘human rights for LGBTQ people’ would look like in their country?”

Talk about concern trolling.