[Deutschmania]

There are many gay conservatives, David Starkey in England strikes me as one of the more odious of his types. Perhaps not directly involved in politics but certainly a player in the culture of this country.

Whilst anti-gay feeling still lingers on the right, being gay is no longer an indicator of liberal or left wing values as a person.

In the United States however , so far as I know , the last organization for gay and lesbian conservatives GOProud , has no successor . So especially given the prominent sway that the Christian right has continued to have over conservatism in the U.S.A. , I rather doubt that there are very good prospects for Republicans whom are gay. The leading figures are more concerned with religio-political identity than with personal liberty .

[Unthinking Majority]

Rich, just for posting this, I can probably get you into the 2SLBGT+ gang... as a "plus."

It's 2slgbtqia+ you homophobe.

[Unthinking Majority]

Yeah these idiots are called Log Cabin Republicans and they're hated by their own party. Pretty much everyone with a lick of sense, gay or straight, considers them absolute fucking morons.

Here's a black version of the Log Cabin Republicans.

Pretty much every minority who sides with the GOP is considered fucking stupid by the populace at large, and especially so behind closed doors by white, cishet Reublicans. They're rich, white, insulated gays (think Peter Thiel, with less money) who are happy to support people who demonize them because they have the Roy Cohn brain disease that makes them think money and power make them immune to being gay (and Jewish). It doesn't, they're just morons.

Except maybe Cubans, but that's a long story to get into right now because we only granted citizenship to the shittiest Cubans.

What does a gay person do if they are fiscally conservative? They have no party.

[Fasces]

What does a gay person do if they are fiscally conservative? They have no party.

What does a straight person do if they are fiscally conservative? They have no party.

[KurtFF8]

What does a straight person do if they are fiscally conservative? They have no party.

Huh? They have the Democratic and Republican parties. And smaller parties like the Libertarian Party, Constitution Party, etc.

[Fasces]

Huh? They have the Democratic and Republican parties. And smaller parties like the Libertarian Party, Constitution Party, etc.

There's a lot of things you can say to describe the Dems and GOP, but 'fiscally conservative' isn't one I'd use.

[KurtFF8]

There's a lot of things you can say to describe the Dems and GOP, but 'fiscally conservative' isn't one I'd use.

"Fiscally conservative" is mostly a fantasy anyway and it's not clear to my why anyone other than perhaps some middle level government bureaucrats would be interested in a state apparatus being better with specific spending patterns.

[wat0n]

I don't know if this was posted here

[wat0n]

Gotta bump this thread but Claudine Gay was ousted from Harvard's Presidency.

[SpecialOlympian]

Gotta bump this thread but Claudine Gay was ousted from Harvard's Presidency.

Who gives a shit about who the president of Harvard is?

I know the right wing is vaguely ecstatic about a black woman losing a job but, again, who gives a shit about about who is the executive administrator of Harvard is? They've been going for like 300+ years now, seems like a pretty well oiled machine that will continue to exist without this person I'd never heard of and never cared about and never will care about being in charge of the day to day maintenance of its' boring ass daycare for wealthy children activities.

I'm genuinely curious: why do you give a shit?

[wat0n]

Who gives a shit about who the president of Harvard is?

I know the right wing is vaguely ecstatic about a black woman losing a job but, again, who gives a shit about about who is the executive administrator of Harvard is? They've been going for like 300+ years now, seems like a pretty well oiled machine that will continue to exist without this person I'd never heard of and never cared about and never will care about being in charge of the day to day maintenance of its' boring ass daycare for wealthy children activities.

I'm genuinely curious: why do you give a shit?

Harvard's President is quite influential. Probably the most influential university president in the US. Why wouldn't this matter?

I think it's fair to say this incident reminds us of the limits of Harvard's power.

And that's a good thing, I think the next reminder will come as the legacy admits case goes through the courts. This is an issue most voters can actually agree on regardless of political party so a ban on receiving federal funding to schools who show legacy preferences and also the treatment of those "disinterested" donors who have their children admitted into these schools upon donating as a form of tax fraud should be the next step.

[SpecialOlympian]

Harvard's President is quite influential.

No, not really.

[Potemkin]

I have to agree with @SpecialOlympian here. Being the ‘President’ of a US university is like being the ‘Rector’ of a UK university - it’s a nothing job given away to celebrities or token minorities so the university can signal its virtue to da kidz. Don’t let the title ‘President’ fool you - these people have no power, no authority, and no respect. By the very nature of their position, they’re a token.

[SpecialOlympian]

I was shocked to learn that the typical Op-Ed dipshits who write for the New York Times and such had been focusing on this one lady's alleged plagiarism (which apparently amounted to some lackluster citing, and not actual plagiarism) for like 2 months leading up to their sacking. For real: who fucking cares?

I'm a typical liberal dipshit reading the NYT because I'm a fucking a dinosaur. My favortie Op-Ed asshole, Ross Douthat, is taking a break from his usual job of shouting "I AM DEEPLY CLOSETED" and spoonfeeding me nonsense about the intellectual merits of conservative thought in a way that makes it palatable to my smooth lib brain. He's raging against the President of Harvard, trying to make me angry at a black woman I have never met at a university I didn't attend in an area I'll never visit. Why in the fuck do I care?

The best part was people coming out to claim that this was some kind of win? I mean, it was: they hate seeing non-white people and women succeed at anything. But to say anyone in the larger population ever gave a shit is amazing, yet somehow there is so little to talk about in conservative circles this became a big fucking deal.

I couldn't have told you who my Principal was after grade school. I don't think I ever gave a single thought to who was in charge of my college when I attended. That's some fucking boring nerd shit.

[wat0n]

I have to agree with @SpecialOlympian here. Being the ‘President’ of a US university is like being the ‘Rector’ of a UK university - it’s a nothing job given away to celebrities or token minorities so the university can signal its virtue to da kidz. Don’t let the title ‘President’ fool you - these people have no power, no authority, and no respect. By the very nature of their position, they’re a token.

Harvard's President is powerful enough to turn her saga into a news issue in the US and beyond.

[Potemkin]

Harvard's President is powerful enough to turn her saga into a news issue in the US and beyond.

She didn’t do that, @wat0n, her enemies did. They pretended she was important enough to be worth going after. Basic rule of war: go after the soft targets first. They’re easier, because they don’t realise they could be targets.

[wat0n]

She didn’t do that, @wat0n, her enemies did. They pretended she was important enough to be worth going after. Basic rule of war: go after the soft targets first. They’re easier, because they don’t realise they could be targets.

Sure, there are people who are more powerful than Harvard's President. She's not an elected official after all.

Yet... It is still incorrect to say Harvard's President is irrelevant given the attention she got. And no, it wasn't desired on her end - it comes with her former position, again underscoring how the position is not actually of little relevance even if she is (now).

[Potemkin]

Sure, there are people who are more powerful than Harvard's President. She's not an elected official after all.

Yet... It is still incorrect to say Harvard's President is irrelevant given the attention she got. And no, it wasn't desired on her end - it comes with her former position, again underscoring how the position is not actually of little relevance even if she is (now).

Look, the position of being Harvard President is as important as people think it is. If the Right can get enough people to think, for whatever reason, that college presidents matter, then college presidents matter - at least as political targets in the culture war, if for no other reason. Happy now?

[wat0n]

Look, the position of being Harvard President is as important as people think it is. If the Right can get enough people to think, for whatever reason, that college presidents matter, then college presidents matter - at least as political targets in the culture war, if for no other reason. Happy now?

Why did even leftist media follow her whole saga if the position is irrelevant?

The whole thing is important because of Harvard's status as the most prestigious university in the US.

[Potemkin]

Why did even leftist media follow her whole saga if the position is irrelevant?

Because the culture war is a thing, @wat0n.

The whole thing is important because of Harvard's status as the most prestigious university in the US.

Few people care who the President of Harvard is, and almost nobody cares who the President of any other university is. Quick, tell me who the Chancellor of Oxford University is (without looking it up). It’s the most prestigious university in the world; who’s in the top spot?