commented on How Green Is My Recount?
Dan, you have always worked on the assumption that Green voters would have voted for Clinton if they had no other option. Given that Democrats stayed home in disastrous numbers (Trump won with fewer votes than Romney lost with) why don't you blame Democrats WHO STAYED HOME. Because if Stein wasn't in the race, her supporters would have joined them, and then you'd have no visible target.
As for Stein's instigation of the recount, it has nothing to do with the fact that some states swung to Trump than is does with her desire to see the democratic process work properly. If America voted like other functioning democracies, voters would use paper-n'-pencil ballots and votes would ALL be counted by hand. No hacking, no hanging chads. And the process would be uniform in every polling station across the country.
I supported Hillary, by the way. But I'd rather win voters back rather than demonize them. Some of their concerns are legitimate.
commented on Savage Love Letter of the Day: Dear Old—Really Old—Mom and Dad
@36 Strangermyself: Regarding the hawkishness being in both parties, that's just my point. We say, "You voted for the same guy supported by the KKK, that makes you racist." By that logic, you voted for the candidate that threatened war with Russia (shooting down their planes) and continued the pattern of death and mayhem in the Mid East, therefore you must be pro-war. No, it they're not racists, just as you're not pro-war.
Regarding the rest, I wasn't trying to create equivalency, but it doesn't mean that liberals can go on acting badly and feel they can get away with it because "the other side is worse." You can't keep lecturing the right about PC behavior and anti-bullying when they see liberals on TV every night making fat jokes, orangutan jokes, horse-faced jokes, etc about Christie, Trump, and Coulter -- liberals should have been writing op-eds saying, "That's enough. Stop it." It doesn't help that we nominated a candidate who called black youth "super predators" and promoted a bill that increased incarceration of blacks. Yep, false equivalency again, but look at it from the other side when we DEFEND that instead of saying to our candidate, "You have to apologize for that and say it was wrong." It's the way we excuse our own shit that bugs the right.
It goes way back to the 1990s, when we (yes, we) liberals were sending office staff to anti-sexual-harassment seminars, talking about abuse of power if the boss consensualy flirted with his secretary, while completely giving a pass to Bill Clinton, having the most power of all, getting blow-jobs from an intern. "If only we could be more like the Europeans, this would be no big deal." Meanwhile middle-managers are getting lectures about workplace harassers if they so much as comment on their secretary's new hairstyle. "So how come I can't be one of these fucking Europeans like Clinton? Why does he get a free pass?" Saying "it's false equivalency" rather than saying, "You know, you actually have a point," just makes it worse. Sometimes the other side DOES have a point, and if we want them to listen to OUR points (which are, on the whole, more powerful) we have to listen and not just say they're all siding with the KKK.
commented on Savage Love Letter of the Day: Dear Old—Really Old—Mom and Dad
Your reply, Dan, epitomizes how the left created Trump supporters -- by not listening to WHY such sweet, generous people voted for such a despicable man. Maybe what the country needs is an all-out discussion over the proverbial dinner table about politics. The LW says her parents "don't fit the mold of Trumpers." Perhaps they ARE the mold of Trumpers. Perhaps the distorted shit-show the media portrayed was just a minority who happened to provide the best ratings. Why not have an open, "liberal" conversation about their choice, understand it, disagree with it, and move on and have a nice holiday dinner?
Instead, you suggest that her friends might be best off retreating into their bubble, and if they choose to attend dinner, that both sides remain in their bubbles. Maybe a good ol' Thanksgiving "exchange of viewpoints" (or arguments, if you will) is just what the country needs -- the type Mike Stivick and Archie Bunker used to have at the dinner table and thrust into our living rooms. It's healthy and necessary.
The fact is, we liberals have elected abhorrent candidates who served our personal interests. A candidate moves toward equal marriage, cheaper health care, and legal pot ... but creates an enormous refugee crisis in another part of the world, along with countless death tolls, and subjected communities to the terror of invisible drones in the sky ready to blow up their families at random. Well, fuck brown people, right? Trump might be racist and anti-Muslim, but one thing Dems and the GOP can agree on is that dark-skinned people far away from America's borders aren't worth a shit. As long as the racism and death and ripping apart of entire cultures is kept overseas and we get equal marriage, yay! So what if one candidate is threatening war with Russia and wants to escalate a military presence around China, and the other candidate is making no particular military threats against any country -- Trump is bad for America and Hillary is good for America. Who gives a shit about WWIII as long as we keep a foul-mouthed vulgarian racist out of the White House. Good for us / Bad for the world, or Bad for us / Good for the world -- that's the choice we're willing to make.
I supported Hillary, but I admit I did so out of selfishness and fear of Trump. I'm willing to understand that some guy in the rust belt who lost a $50,000-a-year working class job and is now working two part-time jobs at half the wage doesn't want a tenured college professor telling him "check your privilege." And the hypocrisy of "they go low, we go high," when for the past year we've been legitimizing bullying by saying their candidate looks like an orangutan, making fat jokes about Chris Christie, and calling Ann Coulter a "hatchet-faced bitch" who can "go kill herself" (the Rob Lowe roast we liberal applauded so vigorously). Not to mention the sex advice columnist who called third-party supporters "morons".
commented on Savage Love Letter of the Day: Spotted a Friend's Husband On Tinder—Now What?
This has been Dan's standard advice for anyone finding their friend's spouse/partner trolling for sex on social media. But still ... Tinder is a VERY public platform. If a couple is in an open relationship and using Tinder, then they should expect their friends and neighbors to see. Thus, making a comment to one or the other is not out of bounds. And if the guy is cheating, again, he's doing it very publicly. The only question is whether YOU want to be involved in whatever drama results from your comment. So I'd still say keep your mouth shut, but for different reasons.
commented on Savage Love Letters of the Day: Screwing Trump Supporters
If you think Trump is the problem, consider a) his level of support, b) the fact that Republican candidates get more vile and stupid with each election, and c) neither Dems nor the GOP win more than three terms in a row (except once for each in exceptional circumstances).
Four years from now you'll be saying Hello to President David Duke. And you think voting for Hillary will be avoiding a near disaster and it'll be all rainbows and unicorns?
Best o' luck to y'all.
commented on Savage Love
Something else for CPOS to consider ... Marriage is the commitment. Engagement is for figuring out if marriage is a good idea. You have not made the lifetime commitment yet. Now is the time for making mistakes, figuring out your feelings, and seeing how you handle them ... which you're doing. It doesn't mean you can keep on cheating until you're married. It does mean you should not be so hard on yourself. If you feel you've figured this one out and you're ready for marriage, go for it. If you haven't figured it out and you want to cheat again, you're not ready for marriage.
commented on Hillary's Poll Numbers Are Improving (But There's No Improving the Electoral College)
"We've got millions of petulant Millennials to pound sense into."
You want the left to vote for Clinton? Stop shitting on them. Stop referring to them as petulant children who need a pounding. When someone writes to you about a partner who is unsupportive and haranguing, you say DTMFA. Well, when you and the editor of Mother Jones ("I hate millennials") show no empathy to the people whose votes you want, well, they DTMFA. You want millennial votes? Put the pressure on Clinton to take Elizabeth Warren onto the campaign trail and court their votes. But no, Clinton doesn't want to be "upstaged." And it will never be her fault for not courting and wooing the millennial vote, it will be millennials at fault because they didn't respond to your hatred and contempt.