this post was submitted on 07 Aug 2024
232 points (99.2% liked)

politics

19090 readers
3966 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
 

Not quite sure what kind of weirdo is against both fertility treatments and childlessness as well as dog parks. Not one I want to hold power for sure.

top 28 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 78 points 3 months ago (3 children)

On page 69, Roberts targets the Swampoodle dog park in Washington, D.C., for having too much room for dogs to play and not enough for children, blaming this on “the antifamily culture shaping legislation, regulation, and enforcement throughout our sprawling government."

What I read is that the GOP is/was about to start a culture war on dog parks. So they don't like cat owners, dog owners, health care, child care, birth control, childless people, children, or the poor. I'm guessing that leaves roughly 1% of the population.

The tastiest 1%

[–] NevermindNoMind 23 points 3 months ago (3 children)

It is such a handmaid's tale view of the world, that all of society should be ordered around producing children. Dogs are bad because they become substitute children and distract us from having human children. IVF is bad because it gives people the option to delay having children. Contraception is bad, because duh no children. Every policy or institution or thing of any kind in society is judged solely on its impact of generating more children as often as possible.

I just can't get my head around what is motivating this world view. I usually try to make it a point of understanding where the other side is coming from, but Waltz is right, these people are just weird.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 3 months ago (1 children)

What else, $$$$, They want as many kids as possible especially in households that can't support them as it leads to more poorly educated laborers and consumers to take advantage of in the future.

[–] Pronell 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

And soldiers. Can't forget the underclass that used to be drafted.

They'll bring that back too.

[–] nickiwest 6 points 3 months ago

I'm pretty sure that white supremacist ideals for maintaining a white majority in the US has more than a little bit to do with this. It's gross.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I just can't get my head around what is motivating this world view. I usually try to make it a point of understanding where the other side is coming from, but Waltz is right, these people are just weird.

I mean it isn't exactly hard to see their intention: they need more meat for the meat grinder. More poor workers to exploit and more soldiers for the army. More uneducated people to manipulate into voting to ensure they remain in power. Especially since their inherent racism means they want to cut immigration - and they gotta get these resources from somewhere.

[–] chemical_cutthroat 13 points 3 months ago (2 children)

I'm not sure they are the tastiest, but they are the only ones I'm willing to eat.

Well done, though. Gotta kill off those brain worms and syphilis.

[–] thesporkeffect 2 points 3 months ago

Honestly I am just planning to pretend to eat my portion and palm it onto the floor under the table when no one is looking

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Damn, it's like if every single thing isn't about them and their unholy spawn they are going to freak out and blame it on some culture war fantasy. Meanwhile they're the same ones de-funding schools and railing against free school lunch programs. It's so weird.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago

They have to keep making new people for their voters to be mad at, so they don't realize they keep voting against their own interests.

"That deregulation we forced into the budget isn't the reason you have cancer, its people who don't have kids!"

[–] [email protected] 36 points 3 months ago

After going after cat owners first, they're now going after the dog people demographic. Good coverage there for making literally everybody dislike them.

[–] newthrowaway20 31 points 3 months ago

These people are damn determined to make everybody else as miserable as them.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 3 months ago (1 children)

They would like to remind everyone that dogs are not allowed in the dog park. People are not allowed in the dog park. It is possible you will see hooded figures in the dog park. Do not approach them. Do not approach the dog park. The fence is electrified and highly dangerous. Try not to look at the dog park and especially do not look for any period of time at the hooded figures. The dog park will not harm you.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 months ago (1 children)

This sounds like an SCP entry

[–] [email protected] 11 points 3 months ago

Welcome to Nightvale podcast, episode 1. Highly recommend.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Dude shaking fat asses' hand in the thumbnail looks like the bad guy from Con Air

[–] miak 10 points 3 months ago

Cyrus The Virus. What a great 90s villain. Upvote for the Con Air reference.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 3 months ago (1 children)

what is it about the dog parks that need to be included in a presidential election debate?

We're talking about parks for dogs, right? Like dog owners can go there and meet other dogs owners with their dogs? Or there's something I don't know?

[–] MutilationWave 6 points 3 months ago

It's because they want people popping out (white) babies instead of enjoying a dog.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 3 months ago

My wife and I have dogs because we love our dogs, we don't have children due to medical limitations. Guess we're the scourge of society, despite our contributions to society by way of charity, being involved in our communities, and helping wherever we can, which wouldn't be possible with kids due to time constraints.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 3 months ago

Going after dog owners is a strategy.

“It’s a bold move Cotton, let’s see if it pays off.”

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Think about the oldest conservative Supreme Court Justice, they've been after this stuff for longer than that. If you're ever tempted to rose colour the past, or think they've changed, remember how long ago those justices that struck down Roe were elevated.

[–] SlippiHUD 9 points 3 months ago

So that's who Kristi Noem was pandering too.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

The more I learn about these people and project 2025 the more angry I get with our society that we are so polite and so moral that we allow them to continue to draw breath.

I really cannot believe not one person has tried to kill these people. If anyone deserved to be put in front of a firing squad, these people do... To hell with moral high ground, to hell with being polite. We're too tolerant of their intolerance.

This isn't about dogs btw... My comment is about project 2025 and the heritage foundation in it's entirety, not just the content of this post. I've learned more than I care to know already today and it has left me in a blind rage.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago

Dog parks really? Do they want to flaunt their dogs everywhere they go?

[–] MediaBiasFactChecker -4 points 3 months ago

Media Matters - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for Media Matters:

MBFC: Left - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source

Search topics on Ground.Newshttps://www.mediamatters.org/kevin-roberts/delayed-publication-heritage-presidents-book-reflects-project-2025-shell-game
Media Bias Fact Check | bot support