https://old.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/comments/165mlum/democrats_could_walk_to_easy_victories_in_most

Angriest Comments

Angriness: 😡😡😡😡😡

This is more likely correct than not.In 2016, when Donald Trump made that famous “grab them by the kitty” comment, the campaign team thought they actually lost the election at that moment. Instead, media ran with it and ram stories about “rampant sexism” instead of stories about one man's poor characterization of women.During the Brett Kavanaugh scandal, Christine Balse-Ford accused Kavanaugh but no concrete evidence ever came out other than “he said/she said” (actually it was remarked it's even weaker because nobody would come out and confirm her inconsistent testimony). Yet people suddenly talked about how Brett was a male feminist and how there is a war on women.Mattress Emily Sulkowitz has been completely proven to be a fraud and made up the campus sexual assault story to try and illicit sympathy from a man she wanted. She later released a s*x tape of herself iirc. Yet this was used for Title 9 campus reform across all of America and used to vilify all men.In short, there is a history ... (1)

Angriness: 😡😡😡😡😡

It's still not logical even if it can be established that a fetus is a full human. Humans have rights, but those rights do not supersede the rights of others. This is particularly true in the context of bodily autonomy, which imo is really the only thing that should be focused on in pro-choice reasoning. Nobody can be legally compelled to provide any part of their body to a fully born and conscious person, so why should a fetus get special treatment? The problem with attempting to draw the line at when an embryo or fetus “becomes” a human is it's 100% subjective and arbitrary. There is no objective and universally accepted standard that can be relied upon to define when humanity starts, so that whole line of reasoning will only ever be academic in its purpose. (1)

I agree with your second paragraph but I actually disagree with your first.You're effectively parroting Judith's Thompsons “A defense of abortion” from the 1970s. But the law and morality do infact punish those for not giving up their bodily autonomy in many cases. Judith uses the example of a famous violinist. In order to survive he must be hooked to you. The question being would you give up your bodily autonomy for him.What that question fails to add would be the precondition that YOU caused the violinist to need your bodily autonomy to survive. In this instance while the government wouldn't force you to be hooked up to the violinist, if he died after getting unhooked, you would be punished for creating the conditions (negligence) that caused his death. (In the metaphor that would be having s*x) -That being said this criticism only applies to consensual s*x and falls apart at the mention of r*pe.Regardless, to contradict your last sentence. While no one legally force you to give u... (1)

Angriness: 😡😡😡😡😡

The problem with Democrats is that it's obvious to the people in America, and most importantly, the people paying for everything, that the Emperor has no clothes, and when they hit the ballot box, they're going to vote for the person who comes out and says it. The Democrats best hope is to court new voters from outside America because there are literal billions of people who would kill to get in and take a bite of that welfare state pie, and close their eyes to the Emperor's nudity. The pork must flow.On a macro scale, the Democrats have no “Trump is a dictator destroying the country” narrative this time; the #resistance made it clear the apparatus of government is arrayed against him, if he is anywhere near as bad, incompetent, etc. as they say he is, they should be encouraging him to run as hard as they can because a glass of water with a D on it should look better. Instead, their desperate attempts to have him trialed (indictments drop immediately after allegations against prom... (1)