Why fight over her? She had a go, lost by the rules (even if she got more votes, still lost by the rules), didn't attempt a comeback. That was 8 years ago.
But also: "young men" is identity politics. Just a different identity than is usually meant.
> Why fight over her? She had a go, lost by the rules (even if she got more votes, still lost by the rules), didn't attempt a comeback. That was 8 years ago.
I agree it's odd, but she was part of an important phenomena. IIRC, Kamala Harris was only there because Biden promised to have a black woman VP. And a big part of the case for Hillary Clinton was that "it was time" for a woman president.
And what did that achieve? Two terms of Trump, and the second term shaping up to be a wreaking ball. The Democrats fiddle while Rome burns, stop, yell frightening things about the end of democracy, then go back to fiddling like what they just said wasn't true.
IMHO, it's time for Democrats to stop making excuses and admit defeat. Their ideological priorities plus fearmongering couldn't defeat literally the worst, most obviously incompetent, known value opponent. The Democrats where that bad, and now we're paying the price. They need to go back to the drawing board.
>> This is why it is very important for Democrats to stop throwing young men under the bus and to quit backing identity politics.
> But also: "young men" is identity politics. Just a different identity than is usually meant.
Not necessarily. I think "identity politics" implies a certain kind of favoritism, but that's not what the GP was talking about. He just said "stop throwing young men under the bus," which arguably could mean merely withdrawing the liberal identity-politics favoritism towards girls.
I welcome a qualified female US president as long as she has the public's best interested at heart. At this rate that woman is probably going to be a Republican. And when the current brand of Democrat groans about it that will tell you what their game is all about.
And again "identity politics" originally meant voting based on your core values not political party rhetoric but then Cambridge Analytica got shut down and it became intersectionality.
If the elections were about being qualified, Trump would have needed to spend 4 years being a senator plus 4 as state Attorney General to reach parity with Haris (in addition to the 4 as VP which he can pair with being president), or 8 as senator plus 4 as secretary of state to reach parity with Clinton.
What he had in 2016 was a string of bankruptcies and a TV show and no political qualifications; what he had in 2024 was as much political experience as Haris had gained since he lost, plus 34 felony convictions for… lying about a sex scandal in his business records, plus two impeachments for something rather more serious than lying under oath about a sex scandal, and that's not even counting the unlawful document retention charges that had to be dropped because sitting presidents can't be charged (or is it tried?) unless impeached (again).
The qualifications he met were the legal minimum: old enough, born in US.
The oval office isn't a comedy stage.
It's your error to treat it this way.
Young men are the backbone of every economy in the world, that's a real thing and you need them, you also need their tax dollars. Men are most labor and put more into the government then they take back.