politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Laura Loomer is kind of mad because she sucked the wrong dick for influence. Should’ve been sucking Elon’s instead.
Nah she's just mad daddy Trump got a new side piece
This is the sort of fundamentally misogynistic comment I'd expect to hear from a Trump supporter. She's not a "whore" just because she's a vocal, visible and yes, you could even say "successful" woman.
She very likely did not sleep her way to where ever in MAGA-land this is. She got to be a despicable human all on her own.
Edit: Listen to yourselves. It helps when the subject isn't a garbage human. Pretend it's your mother. "She just slept her way to success"
If she had been male, it would have been about ass kissing rather than dick sucking.
This isn't a "haha women can only success if they use their bodies" so much as a "haha she miscalculated that using her body would give her a close position to Trump but he moved on pretty quickly and prefers Elon's money".
Not judging from the comments here. They all center on using the fact that she's a woman who MAY have had an affair to reflect on her character rather than the hundred other reasons she's a terrible person.
I'm not from the us and I only know about her because she had a very obvious affair with trumpet
"Very obvious"? When I searched for that all I got was rumor and innuendo and mention of a defamation lawsuit she filed.
But regardless, why is the immediate conclusion always that women use sex to advance their careers and that this makes them "whores". Why is this always considered awful and distasteful but when men do it it's celebrated?
And ya, I can't believe I'm defending this piece of garbage.
Do you recognize that you're the only one calling her a whore?
Ah of course. That's the argument MAGA cult members use when you claim, correctly, that they are racist. Oh no, they didn't explicitly say "black people" why are you bringing it up... LOL.
This is the same old story. Women are denigrated BECAUSE they have sexuality. They are not allowed to have affairs or be sexual human beings - it's ALWAYS associated with bad character, bad actions, etc. Men can do these things just fine - that makes them virile, a stud, worthy of praise.
The fact is that Looner's sexuality and whatever she does in that context is completely irrelevant to her awfulness.
2nd left column
I think it's telling that (a) you see an affair there; (b) you assume that an affair reflects more poorly on Looner than it does Trump.
Bonus: ( c ) You think the Times of India is a good place to get factual information.
a - I have eyes
b - there is very few people for whom an affair with trump would reflect less poorly than on trump
c - quality of their journalism doesn't matter here since the photos are what I wanted to share with you
So you make assumptions. With your eyes and your prejudice. Oh look, they may have had some vague physical contact, I guess she must be some kinda whore.
Same old show.
Did you read the news though? She very, very likely sucked Trump’s dick.
So what if she did?
Edit: No really. Like who cares? Does the fact reflect on her despicability or is she despicable all on her own?
It does reflect on her despicability, and she is also despicable all on her own. She’s not a good human.
Really? That she, a woman, may have had sex with someone?
She's despicable for a hundred reasons. Using the tired old trope of "loose woman" is not one of them.
Finish the rest of the statement, "to exert influence" and you can see why people have a problem with it.
Because she's a woman. If she were a man they'd call it "exerting dominance" and clap.
Wait, do you think nobody has ever said anything about Elon sucking Trumps dick or vice versa?
Of course. But there is a significant difference. Unfortunately, this being the interwebs all nuance is gonna get lost and I doubt very much this point will come across adequately. I'll try anyway.
When saying such things you are not saying either party is a horrible human because they are sucking dick but because they are being subservient and/or self-serving. You are not actually referencing the sexuality of the situation as negative in itself. Whereas people here literally are saying Looner is bad because she had an affair.
IOW: women being sexual is inherently bad. Men being sexual is never inherently bad.
Nobody is saying that though, she's bad because she's a propagandist and white nationalist. Sucking dick is probably the most relatable thing about her.
That is exactly what they are saying. And how do we know? Because that's what gets mentioned first and most often. That's the thing that is used to frame the rest as bad. That's the thing that is to validate every other point.
It's the exact same thing that has been used to invalidate women's accomplishments for approximately forever. Oh, she's not first and foremost a scientist... she's "hot". She only got where she is because she slept her way to the top. In this case they are saying that Looner only had influence because she slept with Trump. Not because she's a capable and clever lunatic on her own. Nope.
Sexuality is never a good thing in women but it's always a good thing in men.
I think that's becoming an increasingly old fashioned way of thinking. Men who are adulterous or sleep with "too many" women are just as often seen as incapable of commitment or serious relationships today. For example the "jokes" about Leonardo DiCaprios inability to date anyone over 26 as he ages are tinged with an implication it's a mental health issue and will prevent him from experiencing real connections.
edit: in hindsight of course an element of the comments on Loomer are sexist, it's ridiculous to say they're not. That said she's a cunt that can fuck right off. Have a good day though sorry for any misunderstanding.
One would hope. But judging from many of the comments here, along with the furious downvoting... not enough.
Are you really coming out in favor of sexual favors as a form of bribery?
Seriously? Did you not read anything else?
WTF. You think it's "sexual favors" if it's a woman but... what exactly? if it's a man?
I'm making the point that her potentially sleeping with Trump is completely irrelevant to her being a garbage human and that it's all kinds of misogynistic to imply that she only has his attention because of "sexual favors".
Geebus fuck.
If some man is sucking Trump’s dick and gets to be in his orbit as an “advisor” and considered for political appointments, than yes that would be a sexual favor.