Search Results: where do I stand

for decades, entire generations of boys were raised to be soft, to never stand up for themselves against someone "less privileged" than them, to be as far away from toxic masculinity as possible

then over time everyone and their grandpa can observe women chasing after bad boys, doesn't matter whether they're a godly Christian woman or a hardcore Marxist feminist

you would think with all this complaining about toxic masculinity, that women especially feminists would want nothing to do with it at all

no amount of gaslighting can cover up what everyone can blatantly see with their own eyes, yes there here women complaining about Charlie Kirk being a douchebag while they lust after Hasan Piker who's a far bigger douchebag than Charlie Kirk could ever dream of becoming

the examples there are of this are so overwhelming it's laughable to suggest otherwise. in fact having the appearance of someone toxically masculine is already enough to get women wet

this also further bleeds into politics too with so many examples of far-left women defending the far-right politics of other ethnicities

and in recent years cops have become soft on crime due to feminist policies but you know what happens to soft cops and who's ready to defund these soft cops?

then there's also countless examples in fiction I don't even know where to begin

women falling for toxic masculine men is just a fact at this point

I could post more if not for the 2000 character limits

Have one election, no primaries, and the top vote-getters go to Washington as the state’s representatives. It would result in wildly more diverse delegations, more moderates representing a wider range of ages, races and political beliefs than we have in Congress.

Rural voters wouldn’t lose “their” representatives under this system any more than urban voters would. In fact, all voters would be more represented, not less. For example, each Pennsylvanian would go from having three representatives to having 19. And each member could cultivate a statewide constituency based on political orientation, social beliefs and moral reasoning rather than geography.

Electing all the representatives at large would make all the districts in each state the same size. More important, it would end the redistricting wars that bedevil us only after the census but now seem destined to become a permanent & ugly fixture of American politics.

If each state chose its representatives in a single statewide election, the result would be a House of Representatives truly representative of the people. Smaller parties would finally stand a chance of winning a seat at the table. The two major parties would be forced to enter coalitions, which would require compromise and moderation — qualities sorely lacking.

Critics will insist that the House is no place for the 17th-place finisher. Perhaps. But could the resulting Congress be any more dysfunctional than the current one?

A single-vote, winners-take-all system would remove party politics and geography from the process. Representatives would represent people with shared ideologies, not some artificially constructed “district” where half the voters feel their representative is not representative of their beliefs.

For example, there aren’t enough socialists or libertarians in any one congressional district in PA to win a seat. But maybe there are enough socialists or libertarians statewide to enable a candidate to finish in the top 17.