I figured the boycott of Bud Light would have only a smallish and temporary effect. But it's now lasted two months and has caused Bud Light sales to plummet by about a third. When you consider that most of the decline is probably due to Republicans, it suggests that more than half of all Republicans are boycotting the brand. A Rasmussen poll confirms this, finding that 67% of Republicans support the boycott:
Surprisingly, 44% of Democrats say they support the boycott. However, there's no telling how many of them support it because of the video and how many support it to punish Bud Light for cravenly abandoning Dylan Mulvaney after the boycott began.
In any case, it's stunning how many Republicans support the boycott. This goes way beyond the MAGA crowd. The trans panic has engulfed nearly all of them.
The effects are not just on Bud Light. Corporate America is taking note and support for Pride Month & the LGBTQ community might never again be the same. Maybe not, but this seems to be a chilling moment.
I can make $200 an hour working on my home computer. {h42 I never thought it was possible, but my closest friend made $25,000 in just five weeks working on this historic project. convinced me to take part. For more information,
Click on the link below... https://GetDreamJobs1.blogspot.com
Its all about money.
It's NOT "trans panic."
Republicans are using the threat of horny hairy guys in skirts invading little Susie's locker room as the leading wedge to attack ALL gays and lesbians and anybody else who's not 100% a straight devotee of the missionary position.
I guarantee: Between now and the 2024 election Republicans will be demanding the firing of every gay and lesbian teacher, school librarian, administrator, bus driver, cafeteria worker, and anybody else in any school who ever gets within a mile of any kid.
They got nothin' but hate and fear, and they know how to use them to their greatest benefit.
The board voted in December to ban critical race theory and more recently opposed a new curriculum that mentioned slain San Francisco gay rights leader Harvey Milk, baselessly claiming Milk was a pedophile.
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-06-14/temecula-superintendent-fired-conservative-school-board-harvey-milk
You can argue about whether he was a pedophile or an ephebophile, but at 34 he had a 16 year old boyfriend. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvey_Milk
If he was alive today he might be prosecuted or sued depending on the statutes of limitations.
If they keep it to the gays the will. There’s a difference between supporting gay and supporting all the trans/queer stuff.
There isn't an instrument sensitive enough to tell the difference between their hatred of trans people and gay people. They're just trying to find the best wedge to start banning gays in public life.
Exactly.
This is way beyond predictable.
Friend told me 'they should have known'.
Dude, Republicans are going after Black diversity officers now. We're a step away from them declaring racism is good again.
"little Susies locker room". Are heartless or just ill informed? Girls are getting sexually assaulted when biological males are allowed to enter girls private spaces.
https://thepostmillennial.com/exclusive-female-student-alleges-she-was-raped-in-trans-inclusive-bathroom-at-new-mexico-middle-school
The liberals I know if given the choice will take a craft or import before a bud, miller or coors
Or an IPA. That's always my first choice. It's amazing that the top beers are "Lites". It doesn't seem to have helped anyone slim down.
My insctive preference for the Porters betrays my Irish working class roots. Me and my partner both; we something we can chew, something you can drink for breakfast.
Isn’t the old joke that Bud Light is like making love in a canoe because it’s fucking near water?
Don't tell anybody, but Modelo is owned by Anheuser Busch.
shhhh!!!
Everyone knows it’s not the corporation. Just boycotting Bud Light gets the point across.
The point that you're a bigot? We knew that, you tell us repeatedly. Also that you're a forced-birther misogynist.
You got it, Crissa.
Are you sure about that? From what I read, they used to own 50% of Modelo. They then tried to acquire the rest of it but things fell through and someone else bought Modelo.
Depends on where one is drinking: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grupo_Modelo
They bought Grupo Modelo but had to give up the rights to produce Modelo products for the U.S. market. Corona and Modelo imports are produced in Mexican breweries belonging to Constellation Brands.
How many lives are threatened or ruined as a result of little Dylan’s stunt? All the work done by gay men and lesbians over the decades flushed down the toilet by that damn fool. 😂
Her "stunt" being existing and enjoying Bud Light?
Yes. I do feel bad for the truck drivers and others in the distribution chain. They are losing their jobs. Most of them are not liberals but are collateral damage.
Is there any indication that beer sales/consumption is down overall, or is market share shifting from one beer to others?
I doubt its down overall. But distributors may just deliver Bud Light or at least not another beer that has taken over its prior market share. They are independently owned.
Fuck you and the fucks you rode in on.
Not being a beer drinker myself, I have to ask others if it would take all that much of a push (or putch if you prefer) to put someone off Bud Light in the first place.
It’s an awful beer that I’ve started drinking just to stick it in the eye of the bigoted Trumpilini lovers
It’s an awful beer that I’ve started drinking just to stick it in the eye of the bigoted Trumpilini lovers
Back in the distant mists of time past when I used to drink substantial volumes of beer and therefore calories were a concern—and I thus frequently opted for mass-produced light beer—I found Bud Light was infinitely superior to the execrable swill from Miller.
(In my dotage, much preferring quality to quantity, I go for Fat Tire whenever I'm Stateside).
Amazing how much beer you can drink and not gain an ounce if you have a physically demanding job, which a lot of us did back in the day. Or maybe it was because we were almost half a century younger 😉
The bearing of breasts at the White House immediately after meeting President Biden also was not helpful:
"A model and social media influencer has reportedly been banned from the White House in the US after posting a video online which shows her posing topless moments after meeting President Joe Biden."
I am all for trans people being treated decently and fairly in all aspects of their lives, but they are doing things that would be unacceptable from a cis person...so they get no pass from me for very bad behavior. This is harmful to the cause and they should be called out for this and ostracized if possible. Best Wishes, Traveller
I totally agree. There's no place for people who have bared themselves to the public in our White House!
https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/article/donald-trump-melania-trump-knauss-first-lady-erections
This comment illustrates one of my personal maxims:
When someone says he's "all for" something, he's not.
So you support people disrobing at the White House?
Perhaps you should take to your fainting couch?
So your answer is yes? That's how people should conduct themselves at the White House? I guess the Biden administration needs a fainting couch too since they banned him.
Biden is old, and consequently old-fashioned. Younger people don't have that excuse.
Why not?
Bear breasts?
Leave the furries out of this!
+1
Exit, pursued by a bare.
I am all for trans people being treated decently and fairly in all aspects of their lives, but they are doing things...
They?
Yeah. It’s the same sort of thing you often hear older people say about any minority group. “I am all for black people being treated decently and fairly in all aspects of their lives, but they are doing things I don’t approve of… so maybe the bigots have a point when they say they don’t deserve full equality?” Judging an entire class of people based on the bad behavior of just a subset of them is endemic to a certain part of the older “center left leaning” population.
Bingo.
That is not what he said at all. He said he'd criticize bad behavior not discriminate. What an over the top dishonest reply.
Bullshit. It’s rank bigotry.
“I’m all for treating white men decently, but look at all the murders they commit, so they get no pass from me.”
And this, too? I lost a lot of my sympathy for transactivism when they went after JK Rowling. Unfairly, I might add. And with absolutely zero comprehension of what it actually means to be a woman in 21st c America.
JK Rowling is not infact a woman in 21st century America.
You lost sympathy after an author targeted them for abuse?
Seems like that shows more about you and how little empathy you have for people targeted for abuse that you choose the abusive billionaire over the minority she's targeting.
Weirdly having bare breasts isn't a crime in California...
Maybe the bigots took a break because of the boycott and discovered that other beer doesn't taste like soapy pee.
That was my take as well.
This feeds into two things, first Bud Light was declining in popularity because it genuinely is the most tasteless beer possible and even numbskulls were catching on to it,
and, more importantly,
being in a circumstance where you can do absolutely nothing and cause some kind of injury is absolutely the social conservatives' ideal experience, --they're not responsible for anything!
Yet another piece of evidence that Republican _voters_ are awful bigoted people. And my guess for the Democratic support is the abandonment of Mulvaney aspect.
For myself, I've been boycotting Bud Light pretty much my whole adult life on account of how it is really not good beer.
The fact that the boycott against Bud Light has been so successful should be a warning to the Democrats.
Pushing Trans Rights is going to be a big problem in the election.
It could easily cost the House, Senate, and President.
It is significantly different than gay rights. Gays can get married and have equal rights and it doesn't affect anyone else.
Trans rights are different. I don't know too many women who don't mind getting changed in a locker room with someone who has a penis.
Very few trans women take spots on sports teams away from other women, but it is absurd when a trans woman smashes a record. It absolutely takes the first place prize away from the woman who came in second place.
It should be obvious to everyone that men don't get pregnant.
I'm all for people living the way they want to live as long as they don't hurt others.
There doesn't seem to be an easy answer. I'm not even arguing trans women should or shouldn't be able to do certain things.
I am just stating a simple fact that pushing trans rights too far greatly increases the chances that the Republican will win in 2024.
So: Equal rights for everyone, but not trans people because elections. Also, ick!
Does that sum it up?
Equal rights? Claims of some trans rights don't fit traditonally defined rights. Having a right to go into a girl's locker room is new. Having a right to play on a girl's sports team is new. Parents having a right to give their adolescent regular chemicals treatments (puberty blockers and hormones) because their child says they feel like the opposite gender is new (at least to much of the public). Ditto for gender-altering surgery for adolescents.
These issues won't fade away with time. And yes, this is hurting Democrats.
Judging from ProgressOne’s response, pretty much. I usually never notice the genitals of the people in the other stalls taking a dump next to me, nor am I comforted by the fact that all the people around me in the locker room have the same junk as me. But apparently tens of millions of (efficiently scattered so as to have the maximal impact in our gerrymandered and heavily biased towards rural areas electoral system) voters are sufficiently icked out by this that we now have to throw all the trans people into a fire if we want to beg them to not take away bodily autonomy from gays and women too.
"[I]t is absurd when a trans woman smashes a record. It absolutely takes the first place prize away from the woman who came in second place."
This is the most asinine thing to care about and yet you conservatives always bring it up. Who the fuck cares who gets the trophy in sportsball? Why do you care if this or that athlete is insufficiently of this or that gender? Literally *nothing* of any consequence hinges on it. It's like getting upset because this or that actor did or did not get a golden globe, and then keying your political ideology to that upsetness.
FFS, this is the sort of thing that only very, very comfortable people complain about because it's a way of signalling what tribe they belong to, not because it actually impacts them one iota. Grow the hell up, and maybe join the rest of us in trying to stop climate change or something else that actually matters.
“Who the fuck cares who gets the trophy in sportsball?”
Pajama Boy, is that you? Is this a real comment? You do realize there are people that are athletes and have dedicated their lives, time and treasure to excelling at them?
"You do realize there are people that are athletes and have dedicated their lives, time and treasure to excelling at them?"
Yes yes, literally THOUSANDS of them (in a nation of hundreds of millions). Unless you are one of them, why do you care?
My daughter is one. And plays on a team full of them.
"My daughter is one. And plays on a team full of them."
Good for her! I hope she enjoys it, like any other recreational activity. And I also hope that you realize that whether this or that person gets a trophy has zero real world impact on anybody.
A scholarship worth tens of thousands of dollars definitely a has real world impact. And who the fuck are you to think you get to determine what has an impact on people’s lives?
Youe were singing the exact opposite tune when it came to a child of privileged upbringing being admitted to Harvard over a working kid on the strength of one percent better GPA. There's a reason why so many people here think you're not a good person. It's high time you listened to them.
You have no idea what you’re talking about, troll.
Oh, really? Since you can't seem to grasp the meaning of simple grammatical constructs, let me put it this way: You don't care dick about the actual merits, the arguments pro and con for any given policy. No, you're for or again 'em purely to the extent they advance or impede your own narrow interest as you define it, but rather than cop to that, you dissimulate with pathetically transparent arguments to pretend otherwise.
So, oh yeah, I know _exactly_ what I'm talking about, you dishonest little shit.
Atticus - Your replies were spot on.
"...Who the fuck cares who gets the trophy in sportsball? .."
If you don't care why insist that trans people be allowed to play women's sports? Since this is an unpopular position that is going to cost votes. You get political fights when for one reason or another both sides care.
Agreed.
"If you don't care why insist that trans people be allowed to play women's sports?"
I would be happy to never hear about it again, yet conservatives constantly bring this up as a Big Issue that it is Important For Politics to discuss. I'm flabbergasted by the whole thing, and can only assume there are countless conservatives out there with nothing better to do than get angry about something that does not matter.
Kind of like lefties and the bathroom issue.
Why do you think it doesn't matter?
Probably because he thinks whether a person is straight, gay, bi, trans, or something else is none of his damn business, which strikes me as pretty libertarian. Somehow, I dunno, I have the presentiment that you'll not be satisfied with straight-down-the-pipe libertarian orthodoxy in this particualr instance 😉
I don't think that is what he meant in his comment. When he said it is "something that does not matter", I took that as meaning sports as a whole. As in, he's not disagreeing that biological males have an advantage, but it just sports so it doesn't matter and no one should care.
Oh, didn't say his words right, did he? Whadda surprise and whoda thunk.
"...about something that does not matter."
If it doesn't matter then ban trans people in women's sports and the issue will go away. Until then conservatives are going to keep bringing it up because public opinion is on their side.
Not a fan of the Gale Sayers / Brian Piccolo comedy match-up, I see.
Signalling isn’t just for virtues. Vice signalling is also practiced by many Americans.
If no ones cares maybe all sports should be coed and we should repeal title 9? A lot of scholarships at stake too.
+10
+1
The first clear eyed comment I’ve seen in this thread. We’ll said.
There is legitimate argument about what trans rights should be. Being an old guy, I have a somewhat old fashioned view. Sports and bathrooms have long been sexually segregated based on physique, not on psyche. If a person with a penis is seen in a men's washroom, or in the changing room of a men's sports team, nobody EVER asks that person what sex they identify as. We simply don't segregate on sexual identity, we segregate on sexual anatomy.
Further, nobody ever looks at the flip side of allowing people to act the sex they identify as but don't have the anatomy for. For cis people, sexual segregation is not "allowed", it's required. Suppose "required" is applied to trans people, based on their sexual identity. Up to now the focus has been on physical males. However, if the same rules were applied to physical females who identify as male as requirements, those physical females who identify as male would be banned from girls' sports and girls' bathrooms and required to join the men's teams and use the men's bathrooms. I trust I don't have to expand on the disadvantages of that.
To me, common sense means that segregation by sex means segregation by physique. I may lack imagination, but I just can't think of a situation where segregation by sexual identity is called for.
You dimwitted buffoons have no idea of the diversity of actual trans people living in your world right now. I'm not even sure you know any actual women!
"Physique" does not simply mean "has a dick." Trans men and women start taking hormones and undergoing physical changes years before they actually undergo surgery. By demanding that locker rooms be segregated based on dick/no dick, you are demanding that large, masculine-appearing, hairy (but pre-op) trans men be forced to share locker rooms with the cis women you imagine yourself to be white-knighting. Yeah, I'm sure cis women will be MUCH more comfortable once they get a good stare in and realize that Paul the musclebound thick-necked guy from two rowing machines over might be in their locker room, but hey, at least he actually has a very soothing-looking vulva!
And there ya go! Insulting, crude attacks. Yeah, that endears all of us to your "movement."
Awwww, you poor sensitive widdle baby! Here, let me get your smelling salts and a fresh new diapee for you.
Dude, you started with the crude, bigoted attitude.
You're exaggerating, a lot. Male hormones will cause a physical woman to become more muscular and grow more body hair, but unless the pre-transition person is already large and burly with, for a female, quite a lot of body hair, they're not going to become large, burly and bearded. Certainly, they're not going to get taller.
Nobody said that *every single* trans man on hormones looks like a big burly dude, dummy. But many of them do, and you have no answer whatsoever for why it makes sense for the cis women you think you are so bravely protecting to share restroom facilities with people who present as obviously masculine.
Nobody. Wants. This. You. Blockhead. Trans men don't want it, and the vast majority of cis women, who are not in the habit of staring at other people's crotches in the locker room, don't want it either.
YOU implied that trans men on hormones would be "large, masculine-appearing, hairy".
However, your lack of reading comprehension is demonstrated by writing " cis women you think you are so bravely protecting". If you actually read what I wrote, you would see that my concern is for trans men, whose physical features, which is to say NOT "large, masculine appearing, hairy" would put them at risk in men's washrooms and who would have no chance of being competitive in men's sports.
They will, nitwit! Just not 100% of the time, which is something that nobody claimed.
There is a very, very easy solution to the bathroom problem, which is to *not* obsess over making rules about who can use which bathroom (let alone statute law, Jesus H Christ) based on an absurd parsing of "physique" like you want. Just let trans men and women use whichever bathroom they think is safest for them regardless of dick status! They instinctively know which facilities are safest for them without your malevolent fake-concern for their safety getting in the way.
If trans people get to choose bathrooms, shouldn't cis people be entitled to the same privilege?
trans men, whose physical features, which is to say NOT "large, masculine appearing, hairy"
Why are right-wingers so intentionally stupid?
https://www.out.com/art-books/2018/6/04/52-breathtaking-portraits-trans-men-truly-inspire#rebelltitem35
LMAO getta load of this fool. Transphobic women, right now, are getting upset because they were too stupid to realize beforehand that passing laws about who can use which bathroom would result in burly pre-transition trans men with full beards having to use the women's room with them.
You abject tools do not want trans people to exist, period. Just admit you're exterminationists and quit being a coward about it.
The should read them some John Varley. Or Chip Delany. Does anyone doubt these types will be making how a person chooses to present long after gender reassignment becomes complete, cheap, and repeatedly reversible? Of course not. Because these are precisely those people who congentially incapable of admitting they morally in the wrong. Ever.
"long after gender reassignment becomes complete, cheap, and repeatedly reversible"
We are not anywhere near being able to do that. And, because of biology will probably never be. And right not they are experimenting on minors.
Post-transition?
A warning that bigots exist?
Gosh, we knew that. Why are you willing to shove us under the bus so willingly, though?
Democrats aren’t “pushing trans rights” any more than Germany was “pushing Jewish rights” before the Nazis decided to blame them for every evil in the country.
Humans have rights. Republicans believe that most people (specifically, anyone who is not a straight, white “Christian” male) are sub-human.
I call taking the American flag down and replacing it with a trans flag "pushing trans rights." I also call flying a trans flag on our embassies overseas is pushing trans rights.
Agreed with Mr Wilson, will think on the criticism by wvmcl2.
This is a very dangerous issue politically and I was very unhappy when Mr Obama took on the North Carolina bathroom issue which I think substantially harmed Hilary Clinton in the 2016 election.
These are foolish political moves that are unnecessary self inflicted wounds by the Democrats...and I am against foolish moves that hurt at the polls. Simple enough, Best Wishes, Traveller
When they move on to banning gay teachers will you tell Dems to throw them under the bus as well?
We'll cross that bridge when we get to it. (Hint: we'll never get to it.)
Hint: We did, and they did.
Of course they'll lie about it.
https://www.google.com/search?q=republicans+call+gay+teachers+pedophiles
I would be a little concerned about Ind showing 54% on support. Any issue that shows Ind over 50%, needs to be looked at with a little more nuance. I believe that there is a sunstantal group of Dems and Ind who are fully supportive of equal protection under the law and gay marriage, but are experiencing some fatigue with the gay and trans movements being painted all over academia and corporations. So when Bud Light (the best selling beer in the country!!) takes an unnecessary wander into the culture wars, it could be as simple as the Mods who don’t want transwomen playing in woman’s sports or using changing rooms. There are solid majorities amongst all constituencies who oppose these policies and this is a simple way to express themselves. Obviously the Reps are being stupid and love to dive into this, but it would take more than just them to tank sales.
"So when Bud Light (the best selling beer in the country!!) takes an unnecessary wander into the culture wars"
. . . by spending a miniscule fraction of its advertising budget on a micro-audience influencer that most nobody had ever heard about as part of a marketing program to spend money on lots of individual influencers. But yeah, it was Bud Light getting involved in "culture wars," not you getting gaslit by a bunch of clowns with nothing better to do than express their party identity by claiming their choice in brands of garbage beer has some sort of political expression.
So who do you think Bud Light decided to send cans to Mulvanny? It didn’t have anything to do with culture wars?
It had to do with wanting to market its beer to as many customers as possible, trans as well as cis.
Note that a decision to market to trans people is not the same as saying that trans people are equal to cis people. Someone can believe that the trans people are inferior to cis people and still not object Bud Light selling beer to both groups. To object to that, you someone would have to believe that trans people are so far beyond the pale that Bud Light shouldn't even try to market to them.
Having mostly lost the battle against the civil rights movement and the gay rights movement, the political right has mostly run a somewhat different playbook this time, focussing on issues like whether trans women have an unfair advantage in women's sports. What this boycott shows is that for many on the right, this really is a rerun of those earlier fights: We don't want to drink the same brand of beer as a
blacktrans person."So who do you think Bud Light decided to send cans to Mulvanny? It didn’t have anything to do with culture wars?"
Probably because they thought that maybe for a trivial amount of marketing money, they could sell some more shit beer to a niche demo? I dunno, do you think that is a "culture war"? To me, it sounds like boring humdrum capitalism.
I've seen free bud light given away among the orange slices, energy bars, and sports drinks at the end of marathons, too--I didn't assume that that was Bud Light taking a bold political stance pro-running or against team sports or something, because (like a grownup), I knew that was BL trying to increase sales through marketing.
Remember that bit in Mad Men where Pete Campbell tells the Admiral TV people that a campaign targetting 'Negros' would cost a fraction of their current ad budget and would realize a higer rate of returrn to boot? and the one exec tells him in no uncertain words, "We're. Not. Going. To. Sell. To. Those. People"?
Fuck you,
Bud Light has been supporting Pride for thirty years. Big trucks and beer gardens.
'Wade into' is just a fucking lie. They put an ad on an influencer's channel.
And bigots got mad. But it's thirty years after Bud Light started doing this.
I don’t think they were engaging in marketing with trans people 30 years ago.
The decision by Garth Brooks to sell Bud Light has been the biggest story on Fox News this week. You might think there was some other big deal this week, but you would be wrong.
They dare not cover the indictment(s) ...
I am definitely not MAGA. And most of my friends are not MAGA, but most people I know will never drink Bud Light again. I think that brand is done. I feel bad for the distributors, drivers and others that didn’t have anything tj do with then trans stuff.
I’m old enough to remember when Republicans were against “cancel culture”. Now they seem to embrace it.
Not sure if a boycott falls under "cancel culture". No one is saying Bud Light can't exist. They're just choosing to express their opinion by not purchasing it.
I was thinking you would try to justify your position by using some specious argument that it’s not the same thing as cancel culture.
Just out of curiosity, are you also boycotting Disney, Cracker Barrel, Target, and Chick-fil-A?
No, not boycotting them. Not aware of any issue with Cracker Barrell of Chick Fil A (unless you're talking about when liberals boycotted it several years ago). Guess I missed the news on them. My wife and I buy from Target probably at least once a week. Don't have any plans to go to Disney but not boycotting it per se.
With Bud Light there are easy alternatives. Not so much with Disney and Target. With Bud Light its such a thing now. If you were out at a bar and ordered a Bud Light you'd be guaranteed to get some good natured ribbing from your friends (or maybe even people you don't know).
I am
Thats ALL they think about.
“Oh it’s less than 1% of all college athletes anyway” seems to be a true statement.
So the argument that the 1% need another tax cut can be neutured by saying it’s ONLY 1% so it’s only a small part of the overall population?
The GOP certainly knows how to present arguments that make no sense.
The distributors and drivers? Come on. Anheiser-Busch (or is it "Inbev" now) makes lots and lots of beers. Including Modelo.
From the WSJ article to which Kevin provides a link:
Most Anheuser-Busch distributors are independently owned, many of them by families who have sold Budweiser for generations. Some Anheuser-Busch distributors said they are now contemplating layoffs. “Our year is screwed,” said an Anheuser-Busch distributor who doesn’t carry Modelo.
They should be blaming the vicious bigots stirred up by a certain nonagenarian Australian media billionaire who is destroying this nation to enrich himself.
Live by bigots, die by bigots.
Next time, try selling to customers who aren’t angry, irrational bigots.
P.S. Beer distributors have protected monopolies and are some of the richest business owners in America. Why do you think John McCain dumped his first wife so he could marry the heiress of a beer distributor?
"I am definitely not MAGA."
Uh huh
You are obviously new here.
Dude, I have been reading comments here since Calpundit.
You are MAGA, you're a bigot, and you lie,
You’re an idiot, but I do t feel the need to comment on it every day. And no I’m not MAGA. You must be confusing me with someone else. Feel free to peruse my comments here and in Disqus. There is no part of me that is MAGA and I frequently talk about my disgust for Trump and his supporters.
You're a fucking bigot.
You're always here being fucking bigoted.
Don't fucking lie.
You’re cute.
It’s no surprise that a very significant portion of the population consists of vicious bigots.
I would bet that few people outside the MAGA and politics junkies know what the protest is even about.
Bigotry is a strong, unifying force in the USA. Always has been.
I don't know. Seems like this has been pretty main stream news. I've seen it discussed on the cable news networks, in the newspapers, and on network news.
I’m not saying that there isn’t an issue. But
You all realize that the poll was conducted by Rasmussen, right? It automatically leans conservative . And yes you can find relatively old/conservative Dems if you try hard enough. And Rassy tries hard.
A mass market American light beer is easily replaceable by any other mass market American light beer. It is no difficulty for anyone to buy Miller light instead of Bud light. And they all taste horrible so this is an easy boycott. It's easy to remember and easy to follow and costs effectively nothing.
"Surprisingly, 44% of Democrats say they support the boycott."
It would be interesting to know how many of these:
1) Know who Dylan Mulvaney is vs are just jumping on support of outrage as a default position
2) Are using "support" to mean support their right to boycott. I mean, I'm a liberal guy, and I support their right to boycott, even if I think the cause is stupid or hateful.
3) Actually have a problem with Bud Light using a trans activist. (I'm sure it's some of the 44%. I doubt it's all of them. It would be good to know how many.)
I have been boycotting all Anheuser Busch products, not because they included trans people in their marketing campaign, but because the CEO issues a statement in which he repudiated the brand's work with trans influencers and embraced the divisive rhetoric of the transphobes. It was perhaps the most utterly craven thing I have ever seen a large company do.
I suspect many other liberals joined the boycott at that point.
This is what a bunch of people I knew did.
They're rightfully angry how fair-weather this support for queer Americans has been.
The sports angle is an interesting one as it so closely aligns with the 20th century bigots who fought sports integration. It isnt fair, it isnt proper, they dont belong, think of the poor white boys who will suffer if blacks are on the field, now wait a minute jews and italians are one thing but negroes are an entirely different matter.....and on and on.
Of course at the time this wasnt a bigot in the same way that a Klan member was....but on reflection, it wasnt a good look to be in favor of segregated sports.
Seperate bathrooms is also similar. Keep those dirty people away from the women and kids in the bathroom, they are a danger! Give them their own bathroom!! EEEEkKKK!!!!
Lots of joint sex bathrooms in europe. It isnt a big deal.
Japan is probably the most sex-segregated developed economy on earth and many, many bathrooms are unisex. The women look away from the urinals and occupy a stall.
the Bud Lite boycott makes sense if you think about it. it costs drinkers nothing to switch to another beer. Beer aisles and bar coolers are full of crappy options that taste almost identical and cost the same or even less. And most people don't just drink one beer anyway. There's literally nothing to sacrifice so it's an easy culture war "win" for the MAGA clowns. Funny thing is that liberals could care less about this issue. Just another embarrassing MAGA tantrum we get to collectively ignore.