[ SECRET POST #6538 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #6538 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________

























03. [SPOILERS for Deadpool and Wolverine]




__________________________________________________



04. [SPOILERS for Nine Sols]




__________________________________________________



05. [SPOILERS for Black Magician Trilogy]




__________________________________________________



06. [SPOILERS for Arcane season 2]




__________________________________________________



07. [WARNING for discussion of sexual assault]

















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 00 secrets from Secret Submission Post #934.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[fscom]

02. https://i.imgur.com/kunJkvo.png

[(Anonymous)]

That's why it's fiction. Conservatives (especially rich old white men) aren't going to give up their power or status to a chick of all people.

Besides, Mom's not President in Futurama. Nixon('s head in a jar) is.

[(Anonymous)]

This. OP is deluding themselves into thinking that the "right" kind of candidate would have had better chances. That would only be true if they were also racist assholes and the other side didn't have a male one already.

[(Anonymous)]

what the hell are you on? do you think that Futurama's audience is conservative, that Momm is well-liked, or that...god, your logic is so flawed I can't even dissect it properly.

[(Anonymous)]

That is probably because you are a moron with zero imagination, but a ton of arrogance. Have a nice day.

[(Anonymous)]

Huh? Mom is a fucking creepy immoral asshole. Your point is that Democrats should have their own Trump? The fuck?

[philstar22]

There idea seems to be that we want a woman president, even if that woman is a conservative, despotic, immoral jerk. Which, no.

[(Anonymous)]

Nah, she understands marketing. She's marketing herself as a cuddly loveable grandma to the public very effectively so she has gold plated PR, it is in private she is the businesswoman. That is the bit you don't understand, and why democrats keep losing. That selfish urge to never market themselves but always be confrontational and obnoxious with their personalities. If Hillary had been less Hillary and more Momsy, or grandmasy, she'd be called Madame President by now.

[(Anonymous)]

Ewwww. The problem is misogyny which you are contributing to with this kind of sexist argument. Woman candidates aren't obnoxious or confrontational, not more than men ones are at least, certainly not more than many men who are voted into office no matter how they behave, what they say or what they have done. People don't wanna vote for a woman, period. This is the same in many other countries. Accept it and move on.

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, well it exists whether you like it or not. And keeping on acting like it doesn't exist while it does exist is why you keep losing. Live in the world that exists first, and maybe you'll be able to change it to match the one you wish existed. Trying to live in the world you wished existed, before it exists is a good way to keep getting Trumped.

[(Anonymous)]

As shown in countries who do vote for women, or have at some point, this has nothing to do with personality. But keep believing that people who vote for a woman presidential candidate who did her campaign differently. People vote for their favorite racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. male candidate right now, with some exceptions for woman racist candidates if they have no other choice. It's all over "Western" countries. That's why you keep getting Trumped.

[(Anonymous)]

It has nothing to do with personality. It has to do with marketing and presentation, get that through your skull and you'll elect a female leader. Just pick a candidate that reassures men and men-dependant women that they are still in charge, even when they are not, and you'll get a winner. Even hated Maggie Thatcher to get into power presented herself as the stereotypical middle class housewife. After she got into power she became a raving flesh devouring nightmare, but before, she presented herself as the UK's then middle class stereotype. Look at the failures of Liz Truss and The Maybot to conform to that stereotype for a counterexample. Look at Scotland's former FM of Nicola Sturgeon, she conformed to the Scottish (particularly West of Scotland) stereoptype of the "wee fighter". Look at every successful female candidate, they never, to get into power, went with the American Left's approach of "suck it, assholes, I'm a woman and I'm gonna be your boss", because that is a fast track to not being elected.

America has a stereotype for successful women, you have to be folksy and supportive, momsy to a fault, otherwise you become a reviled shrill harpy. And that is just for the white women. It gets even harder for black and latin women, because to get to the middle ranks of success, in America, they have to be loud and sassy yet still subservient when given an order; to take the next jump up to true success, that is a whole new pivot. Very few have managed that, maybe Oprah. Harris should've been more early Oprah but not current Oprah. Give people cars, that wouldn't have hurt.

[(Anonymous)]

Thatcher actually presented herself differently. Either downplayed her gender or used her image as mom to imply she could handle pressure. I could talk about other elected woman politicians but whatever for. At this point I don't know what to say if you sincerely believe voting Americans wanted to elect someone who wasn't racist, woman or man, and that they'd pick a woman over a man.

[(Anonymous)]

I don't think they want a conservative in power, if I had to guess, it's related to how Harris tried to appeal to conservatives and failed. (I'm not from the USA, that's what I heard she tried to do.)

[(Anonymous)]

That was more about authenticity. Trump, whatever you say about him, is authentic. He's authentically awful and authentically an asshole, but he isn't hiding it. By trying to appeal to the conservatives Harris (and Biden, because she still carried baggage from his administration) she became inauthentic to both the left and right. The Biden/Harris had enough authenticity problems with the left alone, tbh. And that is the sort of thing that spreads, once you are inauthentic on one issue, people treat you as inauthentic on all of them.

Palestine was the issue that sunk them, I think. Not the one in the Middle East, but the East one in the MidWest. The one with the massive environmental trainwreck, literally. Biden/Harris then went, in response, to go onto break a railworkers strike over better pay and conditions that would've helped the workers avoid those sort of future tragedies. And then tried to position themselves as the party of the working classes. You can't be a strike breaking President and VP and then still be seen as authentically proworking folk. That sealed their defeat way back then. It was inauthenticity ever since. Especially since real and literal trainwrecks kept happening.

[(Anonymous)]

By itself? I dunno, plenty of Republicans tend to be inauthentic as fuck as continue to get voted in. For example, they repeatedly vote against policies and then try claim credit for the policies that are passed/successful. It may just be that we're not paying as much attention in one area as we are in another.

But yeah, Democrats could stand to be more in touch with the working class... hell, just voters in general. I keep saying things like "I don't trust polls, only actions*" but your post just made me realize... it's Democrats who shouldn't trust polls, they should be reaching out to the people, and not just around election time, and not just for fundraising reasons or other support.

(*I still don't trust polls at this time.)

[philstar22]

The sad thing is, a lot of the worker class has bought into the lies the wealthily are selling about blaming anyone but the wealthy for their problems. It is easier I guess to blame immigrants and the "woke agenda" or something. That doesn't make it right. And yes, a lot of the actual politicians in both parties are part of the wealthy elite, that is sad. But that doesn't mean that it would be okay to implement the type of anti-immigrant policies Trump has convinced people is a good idea somehow.

[(Anonymous)]

I get it. In private she is an effective, if evil and ruthless, businesswoman who gets things done, but in public she puts on the homely oh-me oh-my harmless and cuddly grandma image.

It is a suckerplay. I get it.

[(Anonymous)]

Excellent secret. This is like when your kid cousin moves up to the adult table for Christmas and wants to contribute to the discussion about politics.