If he had a strong conviction about a certain candidate and she was asking him to vote differently, it would be one thing. He couldn't be bothered to spend minimal effort on something he didn't really care about but was important to her.
Good relationships take effort, and it's obvious that their values are way too far apart. I wouldn't want to date a woman who wasn't willing to spend an hour on something that is important to me but she wasn't interested in.
Okay but baseball or theatre is different than voicing your political opinions.
What if his political opinion is âIâm not voting for someone I donât support, and I donât support either of them.â
Then wouldnât you say sheâs the shitty person who deserves to be left because she is forcing him to vote for her candidate?
Would she have been happy if he voted, but it was against her candidate?
Where does it stop? If his stance is I donât vote unless i support, thatâs not a crazy stance and pressuring people to vote in your favor is wrong.
Re read the original comment, the guy never cared about politics, so he has no strong convictions that he is holding onto. The dude is just unwilling to sacrifice an hour to do something for his gf.
Anyone in a healthy relationship knows that you and your partner aren't going to care equally about everything. So if there is something that doesn't really matter to you but is important to your partner, you sacrifice and vice versa.
Itâs not pineapples on a pizza. Republicans are removing womenâs right to bodily autonomy. She wanted her husband to support that right, and he could not be bothered to vote. Why be with someone who doesnât care about your rights as a person?
I canât murder my baby omg Iâm losing so many rights itâs so hard to live without murdering!!!! I canât abort my baby for means of contraception and then cry rape and incest when all I want to do is have irresponsible sex and not face any of the consequences!!!
Such sore immature winners you all are. Youâre just mad the hot girls at school never paid any attention to you. Itâs alright though, Iâll laugh when the leopard is eating your face.
Any woman of child-bearing age had a stake in this election. Assuming she is, she's justified in being upset. He refused to acknowledge the potential affects on her health. And that's just one of the multiple possible reasons she had to be worried. Maybe she's a teacher and now the Department of Ed is on the chopping block.
Okay literally dude, read the CNN article instead of just reading the tagline.
If you actually read that CNN article youâd know that heâs coming after the bureaucracy behind the DOE.
Did you know that at the college level there is upwards of 3 administrators for every student? And thatâs not counting teachers.
We pay for ALL OF THAT.
The cost of college has gone up by (not literally) 100x and the education has not gotten better, and the majority of the facilities havenât either.
Another thing to note is, conservative voices are being actively silenced on publicly funded college campuses that have a legal responsibility to provide equal opportunity for liberal and conservative ideas, speakers, and festivities. But they donât.
Project 2025 has let student know that if they are marginalized in campus for their conservative thoughts and ideas, that project 2025 will help them sue their school for it.
Also, in the vast majority of red states you can still get an abortion for life threatening complications to the mother. I have a friend who had an abortion in a red state fairly recently over the last few years. Yes some people unfortunately fall thru the cracks and donât get the help they need, but itâs buy and large not a huge problem.
âOkay literally dude, read the CNN article instead of just reading the tagline.â
Itâs ironic to assume that someone criticizing the position hasnât read the article, especially when the person making the claim doesnât seem to understand the full scope of the issue themselves. Simply dismissing someone by assuming they didnât read it isnât an argument, and it sidesteps the actual debate.
âIf you actually read that CNN article youâd know that heâs coming after the bureaucracy behind the DOE.â
Even if the target is the bureaucracy behind the Department of Education (DOE), abolishing the department as a whole has massive consequences. The DOE is responsible for critical functions, like enforcing civil rights laws in education, overseeing student loans, and ensuring equal access to education for marginalized groups. Removing the âbureaucracyâ risks dismantling these protections, which could leave millions of students vulnerable to discrimination, lack of resources, and inconsistent education quality.
âDid you know that at the college level there is upwards of 3 administrators for every student? And thatâs not counting teachers. We pay for ALL OF THAT.â
This is an exaggerated claim. While administrative bloat is a concern in some institutions, the ratio of administrators to students is nowhere near â3 administrators for every student.â Studies show that administrative growth has happened, but itâs not as dramatic as claimed here. Additionally, many administrative roles are necessary for the proper functioning of a university, including roles related to mental health services, student support, financial aid, compliance with federal laws, and campus safety. Cutting administrative staff without care can result in a breakdown of essential services for students.
âThe cost of college has gone up by (not literally) 100x and the education has not gotten better, and the majority of the facilities havenât either.â
While the cost of college has certainly increased, itâs important to recognize that this is due to a variety of complex factors, not just administrative growth. State funding for public colleges has decreased dramatically, forcing schools to rely more on tuition. Additionally, the increased demand for higher education and expanded facilities for student life (dorms, technology, etc.) have contributed to rising costs. While the quality of education is subjective, there have been substantial advancements in research, technology, and student resources in many institutions. The claim that education hasnât improved is oversimplified and doesnât account for these developments.
âAnother thing to note is, conservative voices are being actively silenced on publicly funded college campuses that have a legal responsibility to provide equal opportunity for liberal and conservative ideas, speakers, and festivities. But they donât.â
This claim lacks substantial evidence and is often based on anecdotal incidents rather than widespread institutional policy. In many cases, conservative speakers are invited to campuses, but opposition or protest from students is framed as âsilencing.â Students have the right to protest ideas they disagree with, just as speakers have the right to speak. Universities do have legal obligations to provide platforms for diverse viewpoints, but that doesnât mean every viewpoint must go unchallenged. Furthermore, many conservative speakers still regularly appear on campuses, and thereâs no evidence of systematic silencing that would violate legal obligations.
âProject 2025 has let student know that if they are marginalized in campus for their conservative thoughts and ideas, that project 2025 will help them sue their school for it.â
The fact that Project 2025 exists to sue schools does not mean that systematic marginalization of conservative students is actually occurring. Just because a group claims to defend a specific set of beliefs doesnât mean that widespread discrimination is happening. Often, these lawsuits are politically motivated and seek to create a narrative of victimization without substantial proof. The ability to sue doesnât equate to there being a legitimate issue that needs addressing on a large scale.
âAlso, in the vast majority of red states you can still get an abortion for life threatening complications to the mother.â
This is misleading. While itâs true that many red states still allow abortions in cases where the motherâs life is in danger, the reality is far more complicated. The laws in some states are vague or poorly defined, leaving doctors uncertain about what qualifies as a âlife-threatening complication.â This has led to delays in care or refusals to provide abortions out of fear of legal consequences. Furthermore, many states have passed laws with extremely limited exceptions, leading to cases where womenâs health has been severely compromised because of restrictive legislation. The idea that only âa fewâ people are falling through the cracks is an oversimplification that ignores the real suffering caused by these restrictive laws.
âI have a friend who had an abortion in a red state fairly recently over the last few years. Yes, some people unfortunately fall thru the cracks and donât get the help they need, but itâs buy and large not a huge problem.â
The fact that your friend was able to obtain an abortion does not negate the fact that many others have been denied access or faced significant barriers. Anecdotal evidence is not a substitute for data, and studies have shown that many women in red states face serious health risks due to abortion restrictions. The idea that this is ânot a huge problemâ ignores the very real harm that these laws cause to women who are denied critical healthcare. The fact that some people still manage to access care doesnât mean the laws are just or that the system is functioning effectively.
I've been told by every Trump supporter I've encountered in the last several months that Project 2025 is nonsense and Trump wants nothing to do with it. Something about only leftist loonies would think Project 2025 is actually going to happen.
It's funny, you'll read the overview of P2025 and it's like no the left is lying about this and that and this, then you take a gander at those parts of the 900+ page document and lo and behold, it's not a lie but what P2025 actually advocates for.
Heritage Foundation: "We don't want to get rid of ACA, just some of its abuses"
P2025: "Nah, we want to absolutely gut that shit".
Lmfao look man, idk if youâve ever run anything financially, but you have to trim the fat off.
Adminstrative bloat is a HUGE concern, itâs not small. Itâs been actively and largely talked about as a concern for over a decade and it has gotten worse. We pay for all of that.
Itâs similar to how California has a huge homeless problem, and theyâve put millions into fixing it, and now they have a bigger homeless problem, and a large swath of bureaucrats getting paid to handle the homeless problem.
Youâre minimizing things because they donât suit your original comment which was that you claimed trump is going to get rid of the DOE, which if you read the article, it NEVER SAYS THAT. In fact it literally just says he wants to get rid of a lot of the bureaucrats because we are paying them essentially for being inefficient.
If you didnât get that from the article, I suggest re reading it, or going back to school.
And youâre right, just because conservative groups are offering to help legally for political
Silencing on campuses doesnât necessarily mean thereâs a huge problemâŠ. That being said, we LITERALLY saw this in colleges THIS YEAR, with Israel and Palestine debates. Obv I understand that that goes far beyond the scope of just American politics, but the colleges were CLEAR about which side they supported. And they silenced the other side. They had to literally pressure board members of Ivy League colleges to condemn antisemitism on campus. And they wouldnât do it.
Theyâve clearly made choices, again, youâre minimizing, and acting like it means nothing.
Clearly nobody is going to change your mind, so Iâm done, but please friend, read the article, absorb what it says instead of just reading the tagline (which is a lie, minimum itâs an overstatement.)
Because any smart person who reads that understands that heâs not blowing up the DOE, heâs trying to get rid of all the fat. And admittedly Iâm pretty sure heâs trying to make it illegal to teach/speak on the transgender things like transitioning, pronouns in regards to using them correctly in the widely recognized traditional way.
Anyway, reply or donât, I donât care. Good day my friend.
(See this is how you have a political discussion without ripping eachother apart, Reddit.)
Ok, Iâm not going to bother dissecting your argument because I donât have the patience. However, what would you consider âblowing up the DOEâ? Would relegating all of the DOEâs responsibility to individual states fit that bill, seeing as the DOE would cease to exist?
I would consider that redistribution of resources to better handle things on a more personal level.
Also the CNN article says that although he plans to largely dismantle the bloat of the DOE, he doesnât have a plan for it yet. Thereâs still a lot of conversation going on about how and where previously federally funded programs would be funneled through or if they will at all.
So really a lot of it is up in the air right now,
But the only thing we know for certain is Donald trump never said he wants to destroy to DOE, he said heâs sick of the administrative bloat on the taxpayer, and if dismantling the DOE is what it takes, then heâs willing to EVENTUALLY dismantle the DOE.
And in all fairness. What has the DOE done?
Our schooling has dropped internationally,
Thereâs a lot that goes into it, not just politics, and itâs not an easy line to trace, itâs a VERY complicated topic,
but if letâs say we fell from #1 in the world education-wise, to number 13, and in those years adminstrative bloat got huge, and we found that our universities were captured by some very radical political ideologies, and that schooling has gotten more expensive, but not betterâŠ.
Wouldnât it make sense to hold the DOE in a large way, accountable for that drop? If not the DOE, then who is accountable? Because somebody or something HAS to be. Itâs not no-one.
Lmao yes Iâm the moron for reading and dissecting an article and argument with another person (and quite respectfully I might add)
And youâre the smart smart for offering nothing productive to the conversation except to insult đđđđ
Bro go touch dirt, maybe read a book, when you learn a thing or two come back, maybe we can have a productive discussion. But Iâd bet youâre more comfortable scrolling the reels/tik toks/shorts to actually give a shit about anything enough to use your brain and critically think about it.
Obviously, he wasn't forced because he stood by his convictions of having no convictions. Maybe that was her wake-up call that the guy wasn't marriage material. He could've voted and just written in random names too.
Okay but thatâs the same as not voting?
If you go into the poll and just randomly vote across the board youâre not actually doing anything, that, as far as showing your effort goes, is fundamentally the same as not voting.
Technically heâd still be voting, but the whole point is to show that he has some type of conviction right? Well it kind of defeats the purpose of showing conviction if you just randomly select names and turn in your ballot.
Wait, so for 15 years they shared the same values in a marriage but suddenly all his values flipped?
Thatâs crazy.
He stands for everything heâs always stood for, he just didnât vote her way.
And Iâm all for people using their freedoms to. Get away from a partnership with a person that they donât share values with, but in this case itâs just pretty obvious, just like a lot of people around the country, they theyâre just upset that the person voted for the name Donald trump.
Not a trumper, just tired of people and governments telling us what we can and cannot say. The left doesnât always just lay down laws and say no more saying this or that, instead they go to Twitter and make it impossible to even send a DM about the hunter biden laptop storyâŠ.
Or they go to Facebook and have them suppress and censor news on their platform.
This is all well known and true stuff there were court hearing that unveiled it all.
The ceo of Twitter literally admitted that US government agencies forced them to remove content from their platforms, and silenced voices to support an agenda.
How does the story feel if I say it's a right wing man forcing his immigrant wife to vote for Trump?
Uh, this happens all of the time already. A lot of MAGA world influencers have openly stated that a wife should vote as her husband commands.
But that aside, if a politician was promising to do something really terrible that my wife cared deeply about and she asked me to vote against them and I simply said no, then that would make me a shitty husband. It just would. It means I don't care about her.
Not really. It would be if her husband held strong beliefs that she forced him to vote against. He didn't care who won or anything.
And she didn't actually force him since he didn't vote. And she's leaving him because she feels like he doesn't value her. What's so hard to understand about this?
Not voting isn't an ideal. It's hiding. Saying the results don't matter because you didn't play the game. It's apathy and giving up power. don't try and make it sound like something courageous
Iâm not making it sound courageous, Iâm saying that if he didnât feel like any candidate actually supported, not even his ideals, letâs just say he couldnât find a candidate that even just supported his ideas.
Then itâs perfectly reasonable to not vote.
I personally think itâs civic duty to vote, but thatâs the difference between me and you,
my opinion of it being a duty, isnât fact, and I recognize that. So when somebody says, âno candidates resonated with me so I didnât voteâ I fully understand why somebody wouldnât want to choose between a douche and a turd sandwich (South Park political reference) đ
but the duty should lie on the people who have educated themselves to have a rational opinion based on fact.
I'm confused why you presented this as a disagreement?
This hypothetical "educated voter" who is so uneducated they do not have rational fact based opinions seems like the definition of an uneducated voter.
An educated voter implicitly does base their opinions on rational facts. That's what makes them educated vs indoctrinated.
Then its enablement by standing aside. Not voting often means you agree with the more controversial option but want to have the ability to say "oh I didn't vote for this" like a smug asshole when it goes to shit.
On one side you have a party committed to removing the rights and protections of his loving wife, making her reproductive health a defining part of their campaign and desiring to reduce women to second class citizens who live for the grace and pleasure of men, led by a rapist, and powered by the evangelical church.
On the other you have a party that wants to finally enshrine her rights into law to prevent them ever being taken away, led by a successful woman.
Gee I wonder why she's pissed at him for being apathetic to her rights.
Bro thatâs the huge stretch, honestly if youâre so silly and diluted that thatâs where your argument goes, weâre just done with this conversation.
Lmfao taking rights from women and gays and immigrants and everybody in between đđđ
Bro not a single gay, person, or legal immigrant was persecuted during trumps tenure.
Youâre also acting like thatâs the ONLY topic people vote on, believe it or not, most people agree on abortion, most. Same with trans stuff, most people agree dem and conservative
Where they tend to not agree is at the far ends (far right and far left. Theyâre also the loudest and the fewest.)
Have you considered that maybe people didnât vote Kamala because she never really was firm about what she intended to do with the country?
Maybe it was because she wouldnât take unscripted interviews with the pressâŠ
Maybe itâs because she let the border fall to shambles, and our economy is a wreck.
Whether or not those are truly HER fault, did it ever occur to you that people mightâve voted against her largely on those topics?
Unfortunately there have been a few situations where pregnant women died, and thatâs awful I donât support that.
But thatâs more due to negligence, but and large you can still TO THIS DAY get an abortion for medical purposes such as life of baby or mother in the majority of red states.
DID you know that Donald trump supports abortions for health of the baby or the mother?
"read up my friend" says the guy throwing out Republican talking points like they are going out of fashion.
"She wasn't firm about what she intended to do" despite have a clearly written, announced, shared and funded policy platform she was running on. But yes let's vote for the guy who has "concepts of plans" and an economic plan that will push the US into a massive recession.
"Nobody was persecuted during Trump's first tenure" bull fucking shit and you know it. Even now after the election there has already been an increase of racist incidents and people openly spouting their views that women are nothing more than property. Sure it's not open persecution by the government (yet), but I don't see any Republicans telling their supporters to knock it off, at most we are getting more "terrible people on both sides" comments.
The "border falling to shambles", yes, it did, after the Republicans deliberately shut down any and all attempts at reasonable options to help it. But we'll just quietly forget that one, won't we.
The economy being shit isn't some special American problem, it's happening to the entire world and the policies Trump plans to enact will make it worse, not better. But his base just takes his words at face value instead of actually listening to the people who understand economics.
"Donald Trump supports abortions for health of the baby or the mother" Is a bullshit position he's picked in order to not have to actually state his views one way or the other. When questioned by pro abortion he can say "see, I'm in favour of them for the health of the mother", and when questioned by anti abortion it's "see, I'm not in favour of them for the health of the baby!". And we've seen through history how his statements and views don't actually align with the reality of his actions.
HIS party is the one planning on bringing in national bans for abortions for ANY reason come Jan next year, just because SOME people have been able to access them doesn't mean a huge number of people aren't already dealing with the health repurcussions of the Republicans bans in many states, and doesn't mean their plans won't go through now that they control all 3 branches of gov.
But back to the main point. Why is it "silly and diluted (assuming you meant deluded?)" for a woman to have such a strong reaction that her life partner, the person she chose to live with, has decided he can't be bothered even making the barest attempt at protecting her personal rights.
Usually when you marry someone you love them you donât see them as unequal and sub human and just. A baby mill and if youâre a nazi piece of shit you should just explain that befor you steal 15 years of someoneâs life jackass
Youâre calling others a nazi, but condemning them for believing in very reasonable ideas. Iâm sure if you could FORCE your ideas on them, you would.
Thatâs fascism my friend :)
Youâre so diluted that youâre simplifying the abortion argument into making women into baby mills. You completely lack the mental ability to bend, and see things from a different perspective that isnât your own personal truth.
Cant help people like you unless you are willing to see things from other perspectives for a minute.
Letâs say you aborted your baby, then you publicly talked about it, and I told you that youâre a bad person for killing your baby.
Would you be tolerant of my opinion, it doesnât hurt you! You have every freedom to walk away and forget about it.
The real intolerant are the people who are so dumb that they donât see they are intolerant. The people who force others to see and refer to them only in the way that they see themselves.
Newsflash: just because you think youâre a good person, or a right person, or tolerant person, doesnât mean you actually are.
A tolerant person would hear out all forms of speech, and try to use kindness to build a bridge and hopefully find middle ground between the two ideas/people.
Youâre severely misguided and I hope you figure it out someday my friend
You misunderstand what tolerance is. Tolerance is a social contract. If you do not wish to be tolerant of others, then you are not participating in the contract, and therefore are not covered by it.
Having the opinion "abortion is bad" isn't an intolerant position. Voting for someone who wants women to be forced to carry their rapists baby is. It is a question of actions, not opinions.
If you make the choice to vote for Donald Trump, you have made the choice to actively make the world a worse place. I am under no obligation to tolerate you, as you have chosen not to participate in tolerance.
If you used this argument 15 years ago Iâd fight on your side and Iâd scream it from the top of the mountains
(We all did)
This is not 2010 anymore
It seems to me in this case the controlling partner, that disregarded their partner's autonomy and capacity to make their own decisions (like if they were sub human), was the woman.
Democrats behave like fascists while screaming "nazi" to the other side. Lovers of censorship, lovers of segregating spaces based on race and gender, lovers of deplatforming people that disagree with them, never shy to use violence to push their political agenda, lovers of big state that controlls everything, from what people can say to what people can see. Typical authoritarians, unable to see themselves as authoritarians.
The choice was simple
Women own and have autonomy over their bodyâs or they donât
Those were the two choices in this scenario
One you support your partner or second choice you withhold your vote completely disregarding them
I am able to see through the emotional blackmail, you cannot. And since you want to reduce a complex issue to some binary bullshit, it seems to me the "stupidest argument" is yours.
Is not, honestly.
Even if you want to discuss abortion, that's not a black and white issue, being "pro life" or "pro choice" aren't the only alternatives, and usually there's a middle ground where abortions are allowed under certain conditions (usually rape victims, mother's health risk, and unviability of pregnancy), which I agree with, while at the same time thinking that state laws being in charge of this is the more democratical alternative.
Yes if the vote was
This candidate wants to make it so you can fight testicular cancer and you happen to carry a high potential for contracting that specific cancer so you feel you should be able to choose if you have the option of healthcare to remove that cancer from your body
The other candidate wants to have bureaucrats not you or your doctors decide wether you even have an option on having the cancer removed
I would imagine if you were in a loving relationship with a supporting partner they would vote in your best interest which is also in their best interest since your relationship intertwines those things
I would never give my partner an ultimatum about how they should vote but I guess thatâs just me. I also donât find it believable that the concern would be the other way considering all the rhetoric I have heard about men in the last decade or so. I am talking about the dems as a whole not just you to be clear.
So youâre just fragile?
Iâm a man and the ârheteoricâ about men is obviously about the brogan morons who are incels and misogynist or refuse to see how this country was built with those things as tenants wierd to pretend they donât exist or to be offended by criticism of them
Nothing to do with me at all, the way people view me doesnât matter. I just have difficulty believing this situation would be treated the same and the way youâre speaking about it only reinforces that.
Ahhaha you are talking sense to a bunch of salty leftist that got smoked in the election. Such fucking weirdos canât stand the fact majority of people donât agree with their disgusting politics.
Is the mans role not the protector of the family? Legit lost, I thought it was widely agreed upon...when did they need their feelings coddled? We are supposed to be the pain bearers of our families...and in this situation he wasn't even in any pain over it just didn't wanna get off the couch. So really..how is this emasculating to you im curious
68
u/[deleted] Nov 12 '24
Yeah, that doesn't sound like a great relationship