JemmyTrump Is ‘Weird,’ Vance Is ‘Creepy.’ Finally, the Democrats Start Name-Calling
MicroWavewww.nytimes.com/2024/07/31/opinion/trump-vance-…
Snowflakes. Groomers. Cucks.
For years the MAGA movement has approached politics the way a bully would approach a schoolyard, sparring with labels so nasty, they seemed expressly chosen to appeal to the kind of people who stuffed nerds in lockers in sixth grade. And for years Democrats, abiding by the mantra to go high, not low, have responded by trying to be the adults in the room: defending themselves with facts, with context, with earnest explanations that nobody remembers (if they defend themselves at all).
The problem is that taking the high road only works if politics is a sport played mainly by people who act like grown-ups, which it is not. And also: Facts and context don’t make for particularly sticky messaging.
Enter: Weird.
Over the past two weeks, as “Brat” and coconut memes have taken over the internet and Kamala Harris inches closer to Donald Trump in the polls, the Democrats have finally gone low, deploying a bit of verbal jujitsu so delightfully petty it might just work.
i find weird and creepy to be less name calling and more fact pointing
Let's keep up the "name calling" facts
Matt Gatez creepily traffics children\ Gym Jordan is, at best, a creepy enabler of pedophiles\ Mike Johnson weirdly discusses individual porn movies with his children\ (I'm not trying to stick to a theme here)\ Lauren Boebert seems to weirdly enjoy public indecency
yes! they key is to use factual words that these very simple, emotionally driven people understand.
Sometimes a creepy pattern just emerges from the data. :shrug:
Republicans ain't like us.
Party of family values 🙄
MTG *literally* feeling-up a cardboard cutout of TFG is SUPER weird. what in the sugar frosted fuck was that??? Southern republicans were fucking weird 20 years ago but god damn
Also way less offensive than what they deserve.
Have some Lemmy Gold.
i love how there are like 10 different kinds of lemmy gold
Good observation!
Take these!
And these as well!
They are all as valuable as *that other gold* too!
Gotta catch em all!
That's cause all the Instances have different gold.
There is??? I've never seen anyone offer up any in the comment sections I've been in.
Oh dang this one's got Lemmy on it.
For Heaven's sake, someone make this person a Lemmy Mod
Unfortunately, fact pointing doesn't work.
If you want name-calling, these work:
Back when Michelle Obama said when they go low, we go high--I told my wife "I really wish that worked in American politics, I really do....but it simply doesn't". My wife disagreed. Because my wife is a mature, kind-hearted Democrat. She thinks you can bring an informational brochure to a bar fight.
Maybe there is a way to de-escalate things and return to more civil "statesmanship" style in our politics. But my guess is that these things follow some kind of up-and-down cycle, and you don't want to be on the side that's lagging.
I saw an article that summarizes people like your wife as those living in a West Wing (TV show) fantasy. I wish we lived in such a world too, but we definitely do not.
I do not mean offense to your wife. I envy people that still have that type of faith.
No offense taken. She has a hard time seeing how nasty it has become. She limits her exposure to the news, which is mostly a good thing.
It isn't a good thing overall if it means she's that out of touch.
Out of touch with what? How ducking awful humans really are?
Out of touch with current politics.
Elaborate. Which part of the GOP platform are we going to talk about? Oh, right, they don't have one. There's literally nothing to discuss.
Meeting in the middle and taking the high ground has worked a LOT in the past. In about 12 years, though some would argue since 2002, things changed. We can return to a more reasonable time, though I am of the opinion that the modern Republican Party needs to be gutted and replaced before we can do that. They are so far right that they've done a complete circle and have ended up with various heads in far too many asses.
I'm a big picture kind of person and that large magical totally not a portal painting on the wall points to the party being beyond saving.
Yeah I think the winning move is “we can discuss the issues as mature adults whenever you choose to. But until then if you’re going to insist on name calling and fascism I’m going to call you the pathetic weirdo you’re being”
I mean honestly, this is correct. There are likely a few Republicans in positions of some power that disagree with how things have gone. Unfortunately, I feel they are far in the minority. Today it is no longer an issue of mild morality disagreements, or a lack of some fearless leader. The bigots, racists, and fascists have taken over the party.
Now there are ways to change this. Shift the status quo away from their foolish and evil ideologies. BUT it would take commitment from leaders of both parties - NOT assigned leaders, people who are instead well-respected, to step up together. Problem is there is no one on that side of the fence who fits that role right now. Chances are we'd have to vote them in. After all, we can affect that too. If we know a Democrat isn't likely to take a seat, push for the better Republican. No reason we can't move left by yanking and pulling in equal measure.
Fully agree except I don’t think it will be republicans who join us there. I think we’ll end up with a Democrat split once the republicans are unviable
It’s further back than that. Newt Gingrich in the 90s proved that the “fuck you, I’m gonna break your shit” republican strategy was surprisingly (politically) effective in the context of winning American elections and curbing the (publicly apparent) effectiveness of the Democratic Party. The DNC just took over 30 fucking years to fully understand that, and in the interim, the American public has paid the price.
I considered pushing back even into the late 70s. I think though, the shift to the modern mental breakdown really began happening after Sept. 11th. With 2002 really kicking off the U.S. involvement in the middle east as a response to the incident. As we know now pointing the guns at the more convenient (for us) targets. I'm no historian though.
I sure wouldn't miss them.
They go low, we kick them in the teeth.
Knee to the nose would be my personal go to if someone “goes low”
As a democratic compromise i propose we do both
This does seem easier, logistically.
Deleted by moderator
I have to upvote Innuendo Studios.
Exactly, we don't go high because they go low, they go low because they know we'll go high.
It's not just one or the other.
You can't ignore it, you can't pick it apart and expect people to listen. Even if they listen, now you're spending all your time explaining.
What you is dismiss them quickly and broadly, then talk about what you would do.
They won't waste time trying to talk policy, so they're reduced to making the same insults and getting the same dismissals.
It makes them look "weak" and the more they fight back the crazier shit they have to make up. It's a feedback loop.
Biden tried to do it, he just couldn't string together enough words. Kamala can, but it's not some master strategy, just the common sense response to the situation
Sure, I hear you and what you're saying, and it all makes sense. I think it depends on the time, the place, and the audience. I would say *in general* there has been a sea change here in the Trump post-truth world. And in general, things are much, much nastier as far as the tone and style goes. Things were very nasty when it came to policy and actual backroom deals back when Reagan took over. But at least the evil old bastard was charming and liked most Americans in his own goofy / phony way. He did pit us against each other but more in the grandpa wants to watch the kids wrestle kind of way compared to Trump's "let's destroy democracy" kind of way.
I also think it's very important that the Democrats continue to be *for* some things and not just 100% *against* things like the Republicans are.
Have to fight back against the bullies to get them to stop.
I think it's missing the point. It's not effective for being name-calling. It's just saying what everyone is already thinking. Like in the 2020 debate when Biden said "Will you just shut up, man?" It was relatable because Trump runs his fucking mouth all the time.
This is the same. It's a relatable feeling - Trump is deeply weird and out of touch. Vance is so creepy people didn't even bother to check if he really wrote about fucking a couch.
Nailed it. Pre-Trump era I would have frantically searched for a source. These days my expectations from the Republicans are *so* unbelievably low.
Don't let Shady Vance go near your couch cushions.
You mean JD Vance, the man who wrote *Wet Goddess: Recollections of a Dolphin Lover* under the pen name Malcolm Brenner?
Are you saying JD Vance not only
lovesfucks couches, he also reallylovesfucks dolphins?Does he like fish sticks?
Are you saying JD Vance keeps Kanye's song "Gay Fish" on constant rotation?
My only issue with using weird to refer to them is how much I love Weird Al Yankovic...
Fuck it tho.. if weird works to get under the skin of fascistsI don't think it'll hurt AL in the slightest.
There's good weird and bad weird.
Trump is shit. Vance is stupid. Match made in hell. Wierd just aint cuttin it, comrades
I don't like the implications for future political discourse...
but fuck it, for now it's refreshing to see the reactions of surprise by that camp... Did they think that Dems didn't dunk on them "playground style" cuz they *couldn't?*
All due respect to Michelle Obama otherwise, but I think she was flat out wrong when she said ‘When they go low, we go high’. It's the paradox of tolerance applied to the political realm. How do you ensure a tolerant society in the face of intolerant people? It's impossible if you're not allowed be intolerant of intolerant people. How do you ensure that political discourse sticks to concrete policies and objective facts when your opponent refuses to engage with either but instead stoops to conspiracy theories and personal attacks? Also impossible if you're stuck talking about difficult concepts and nuanced facts while your opponent is free to sling personal insults and cognitively sticky memes that may have absolutely nothing to do with reality.
The solution is to apply social contract theory. Tolerance doesn't have to be a rule that you're not allowed to break. It can be a social contract instead, so when someone breaks the social contract by being intolerant *you are no longer bound by the contract*, freeing you to not tolerate their behavior in return. Similarly, sticking to policy- and fact-based political debate doesn't have to be a rule you're not allowed to break, it can be a social contract between political opponents. If the other candidate won't debate policy or facts then you're free of the contract, which means you're free to say they're weird. Which they very much fucking *are*. Once you get most of the figurative children out of the room, you can go back to making actual progress amongst the contract-adhering adults who remain.
An important perspective here is also: by not agreeing to the terms of a social contract the other party is, in fact, forfeiting their right to be treated as a signatory to contract, and any implied protection that accompanies it. When I frame it like that it feels less like I have a license to actively be hostile in response to douchebaggery of the right, and more that they have opted to stand in the douchebaggery lineup.
6 in one, half dozen in the other, but I like putting the responsibility on them for a change.
You said it so well. 8 years too late but hopefully still enough time to avert a real disaster.
What Game Theory Reveals About Life, The Universe, and Everything
https://app.getrecall.ai/share/b53f83e5-f90e-555e-a808-aaf7ca787ee0
The Prisoner's Dilemma The video discusses the Prisoner's Dilemma, a famous problem in game theory that arises in various situations, from international conflicts to everyday life.
The Prisoner's Dilemma illustrates the potential for conflict and suboptimal outcomes when individuals act rationally in their own self-interest.
The example of the US-Soviet nuclear arms race highlights how the Prisoner's Dilemma played out in a real-world scenario, leading to a costly arms buildup and a stalemate.
The video introduces the Prisoner's Dilemma through a hypothetical game involving two players and a choice between cooperation and defection.
The game demonstrates that regardless of the opponent's choice, the best strategy for each player is to defect, leading to a suboptimal outcome for both.
The video also mentions the role of the RAND Corporation in studying the Prisoner's Dilemma and its implications for the US-Soviet conflict.
The video concludes by highlighting the prevalence of the Prisoner's Dilemma in various contexts, including the behavior of impalas in removing ticks.
Impalas face a dilemma when grooming each other: cooperating by grooming another impala comes at a cost, but they also need to be groomed.
The dilemma is similar to the Prisoner's Dilemma, where the rational choice is to defect, but repeated interactions change the dynamics.
Robert Axelrod's Prisoner's Dilemma Tournament Robert Axelrod conducted a computer tournament to find the best strategy in a repeated Prisoner's Dilemma.
He invited game theorists to submit computer programs, called strategies, which played against each other for 200 rounds.
The tournament was repeated five times to ensure the results were robust.
One of the simplest strategies, Tit for Tat, won the tournament.
Tit for Tat starts by cooperating and then mirrors its opponent's last move, cooperating after cooperation and defecting after defection.
Tit for Tat's success highlights the importance of cooperation and retaliation in repeated interactions.
The tournament results demonstrate that simple, consistent strategies can be more effective than complex ones in repeated games.
Tit for Tat's Success and Qualities of Successful Strategies The Prisoner's Dilemma Tournament: Robert Axelrod conducted a tournament where computer programs played the Prisoner's Dilemma game against each other. The goal was to see which strategy would be most successful in maximizing its own payoff.
Tit for Tat's Success: The simplest strategy, Tit for Tat, emerged as the winner. It was a "nice" strategy, meaning it didn't defect first, but it was also retaliatory, defecting only when its opponent did.
Qualities of Successful Strategies: Axelrod found that the best-performing strategies shared four qualities: they were nice, forgiving, clear, and simple.
The Importance of Being Forgiving: Forgiving strategies, like Tit for Tat, were able to retaliate but didn't hold grudges. This allowed them to build trust and cooperation over time.
The Second Tournament: Axelrod held a second tournament, this time with an unknown number of rounds. This change was significant because it removed the incentive to defect in the final rounds.
The Rise of Nasty Strategies: Some contestants in the second tournament submitted "nasty" strategies, hoping to exploit the forgiving nature of others.
Tit for Tat's Continued Dominance: Despite the emergence of nasty strategies, Tit for Tat remained the most effective strategy in the second tournament. Nice strategies continued to outperform nasty ones.
Axelrod's research identified four key qualities of successful strategies in the repeated Prisoner's Dilemma: being nice, forgiving, retaliatory, and clear. These qualities are similar to the "eye for an eye" morality that has evolved around the world.
Tit for Tat, a strategy that cooperates on the first turn and then mirrors the opponent's previous move, was a successful strategy in Axelrod's tournaments. However, it is important to note that there is no single best strategy in the repeated Prisoner's Dilemma, as the best strategy depends on the other strategies it interacts with.
The Evolution of Cooperation Axelrod conducted a simulation where successful strategies reproduced and unsuccessful strategies died out. This simulation showed that even in a world where nasty strategies initially thrive, nice strategies like Tit for Tat can eventually dominate the population.
Axelrod's research suggests that cooperation can emerge even in a population of self-interested individuals. This is because cooperation can be a more successful strategy in the long run, even if it requires some initial risk.
Axelrod's insights have been applied to various fields, including evolutionary biology and international conflicts. His work suggests that cooperation can evolve even in the absence of trust or conscious thought, as long as it is encoded in DNA and performs better than other strategies.
The Impact of Noise and Errors The text discusses the impact of noise and errors in game theory, using the example of the Soviet satellite system mistaking sunlight for a missile launch. This highlights the importance of studying the effects of noise on strategies.
The text explains that Tit for Tat, a strategy of cooperation followed by retaliation for defection, performs poorly in a noisy environment due to the potential for misinterpretations.
To address this issue, a more forgiving version of Tit for Tat is introduced, where retaliation occurs only 9 out of 10 times. This allows for breaking out of echo effects while still maintaining a deterrent against exploitation.
The Importance of Cooperation and Win-Win Situations The text emphasizes that winning in life is not always about beating the other player, but rather about finding win-win situations and working together to unlock rewards. This is illustrated by the example of the US and Soviet Union gradually reducing their nuclear stockpiles through cooperation.
The text concludes by highlighting the enduring lessons from Axelrod's tournaments: be nice, forgiving, but not a pushover.
The Speaker's Insights and Recommendations The text mentions that Anatol Rapoport submitted Tit for Tat to the tournament at the request of the speaker.
The speaker emphasizes the importance of choices in life, as they shape not only our own future but also the future of those we interact with.
While the environment initially influences our success, in the long run, it is our choices that shape the environment.
The speaker encourages viewers to play the game of life strategically, as their choices have a wider impact than they might realize.
The speaker recommends Brilliant, an online learning platform, as a resource for developing critical thinking and problem-solving skills.
Brilliant offers a course on probability, which teaches viewers how to analyze real-world situations involving chance and risk.
The speaker highlights the hands-on nature of Brilliant's lessons and encourages viewers to try the platform for free for 30 days.
Yeah. I think they thought that. The bully doesn’t think the victim can fight back. Or maybe they just think they never will. But someday the victim does
I mean, John Quincy Adams called Jackson's wife a slut and Andrew Jackson called Adams a pimp.
Adams, "yeah, pimping out your wife!"
Jackson: Oh boy, here I go dueling again!
"Your wife is everyone's Huckleberry" - Adams
It's not even petty. It's just true. Republicans, with their obsessions over what's going on in everyone's pants and bedrooms, really are weird and creepy.
MAGAs are one trick ponies. Never engage them. Always call them out. It is easy once you know their game.
Future Presidential debates:
"Shut up you lying little bitch"
"Come make me, fuckface!"
Schoolyard Insults: Presidential Edition
I love how b!t©h is *removed* but "fuckface" is peachy.
Only because you're on ml, my instance gives me the full uncensored text.
Still hilariously arbitrary, no matter who's dumb idea it was.
wait is it just straight up removed, or censored like b****?
There’s a hunter2 joke here but I’m too old and tired
Why did you just type a bunch of asterisks in the middle of a sentence?
It appears as *removed*. Example: "You son of a *removed*!
Republicans are disgusting
You get it:
https://archive.is/JGSPb Because I hit that wall.
Also, holy shit. That's the most mind-blowing article I've read in awhile. Thank you!
You’re welcome. I did my own research after Trump got elected into the Authoritarian Personality, Dark Triad and the F-Scale.
So, this guy said he wants to bang his daughter back in 2016 and it took you 8 years to settle with “weird”.
Woah, slow down there cowboy!
We called him out on it then. But man, this weirdo just took it in stride like being called a fascist by everyone from historians to neo nazis. But weird, he doesn’t like it when we acknowledge he’s weird.
No it's perfect because harsh insults would turn off some Democrats, but saying they're weird though, it's just pointing out the obvious and making people think "Isn't it weird that the guy says he's here for the common folks but he's a billionaire?" "Isn't it weird to support someone who said women should be grabbed by their pussy?"
I think it's less about insulting them, and more a out no longer treating them with the utmost respect. We (and by we I don't just mean lefties) should have called them weird when they called themselves the the tea party, but we handled absolutely insane rhetoric by trying to meet it from a place of thoughtful and respectful academic discussion. It was always the wrong strategy.
That said it could very easily backfire. Going to far would look really childish. I think weird really hits home with how most reasonable people feel about these guys.
Agreed. There are certain positions so out there that they do not deserve any kind of respectful discourse. Republicans have been far past that since Bush II. I don't see a path to getting back there while they're still one of the two major parties. They need to either die off, or we fix the systemic issues that prevent third parties from being viable. Both works, too.
Every friggin' (R) are weird and creepy POS.
Bout damn time we give up this "We go high" bullshit
This is much, much "higher" than the right.
We'd have to have Joe Biden drop the Hard-R on Mark Robinson to reach anywhere near the lows of the Right
I was annoyed at that “when they go low, we go high” rhetoric. No you kick them in the teeth. Politics is a pig wrestling competition and you gotta get dirty.
Can we make a meme referencing the MyPillow guy with Vance's sofa smashing? After that all we'll need is Trump embracing the Turks to get the Ottoman reference in there somehow and we'll have a completely furnished set!
Besides, I've heard that Trump smells kinda yucky.
(If this is more effective to steer away the followers than guilt on 34 points, rape and hush money, then let's roll with it.)
Supposedly has for decades, this is not an age issue
looks like what a faint, unclean clogged garbage disposal would smell like.
Apparently the only way to put Republicans in check is to strategically sink to their own inate level.
Only verbally to them. The goals are totally different. Republicans want ownership to women's and children's bodies and to make people feel guilty if they disagree.
Poetic justice for the "fuck your feelings " crowd.
The primary difference being that the Dems are backing up the name calling with actual policies or things they've done.
Trump is weird bc he constantly says off the wall things, does weird shit, and supports unpopular policies (which are weird).
Vance is creepy because he believes and says super weird shit about women. Like how he believes women have to have kids to have value - that is creepy. If somebody said that on a date, there would not be another date. And how he nevertheless has no problem with childless couches - pretty hypocritical and creepy.
And from the repub side:
Schumer is a "member of Hamas" because.... it is inflamatory
Kamala is "laughing kamala" because.... she laughs sometimes. She is also a "radical democrat socialist" because.... she supports mainstream, popular, dem policies
"Look, what I am saying that I'm looking for a women who knows that their sole purpose is to make babies for me. I am willing to entertain myself with the couch.......Oh, you have to the washroom."
*Four hours later*
"Psh, women and their bathroom habits."
They’re both weird and creepy in their own ways. The GOP is like a Petri dish that someone smeared rabid monkey shit on, and we’re all watching it fester and mutate.
Name calling like that should work well with the youth vote. Smart. Politics is just a shit throwing contest. The other side will probably follow suit with terms that fit the demonized adjectives popular among the demographics of their base.
Contrary to the prevailing view that youth are rebellious, they always obey the patriarchy behind the scenes, the merchants of "the cool" dictating the popular image to them. Pretty hard to get milage out of calling a non-white woman creepy or weird. On the other hand, it is kind of a reflexive acceptance when those negative predicates are applied to any male over 20. Agreed. I think dicks of any age are weird and gross myself.
But will their POLICIES improve our lives?
People say a lot of really mean things to people. Sometimes it is primal and cuts to the core. But then they return with a how dare or act like the enmity is only one way. Strange. There should be more rational dialogue and less personal invective. I wonder why people like to focus on the ad hominem because I find the actual game plans (analysis and practice) more interesting. Why did we all get so caught up in identity? Rather than hiding behind identity, we should lead by revealing with positive action.
Seeing that thumbnail for the first time had me thinking "Who's the B movie token Russian guy?"
fuck us politics.
Non of them ever adress the actual issues.
The declining middle class.
That you are just an industrial war machine that has to constantly be in war.
That you are ruled by wall street.
Bernie Sanders...
like they will ever let him run. He is anti Israel, guess which lobby doesn't like him ?
Adjectives are not nouns.
Democrats have become so right wing they're finally allowed to do name calling.
I fear this is Harris stalling on detailing her platform. Please, don't just bank on your age difference; even though Trump is a weirdo. Will someone run an actual campaign or am I just out of touch here?
Kamala is talking a lot about what she wants to accomplish.
This is the newest I could find. Uses quotes from 2019; even though the article is a few days old. It also contains alot of speculation.
New York Times Media Bias Fact Check Credibility: [High] (Click to view Full Report)
Check the bias and credibility of this article on Ground.News
The Independent Media Bias Fact Check Credibility: [Medium] (Click to view Full Report)
Check the bias and credibility of this article on Ground.News
Vox Media Bias Fact Check Credibility: [High] (Click to view Full Report)
Check the bias and credibility of this article on Ground.News
Thanks to Media Bias Fact Check for their access to the API.
Please consider supporting them by donating.
Footer
Beep boop. This action was performed automatically. If you dont like me then please block me.💔
If you have any questions or comments about me, you can make a post to LW Support lemmy community.
I'm still in the group of... This is childish behavior.
The walk around while holding on to your ankles group?
No the, "politics should remain professional" group.
McCain Defending Obama: https://youtu.be/JIjenjANqAk&t=30s
That ship has sailed years ago. Maybe we'll get back to it if everyone votes and the Fanta Menace goes to jail.
Deleted by author
It is, in fact, bad to sell classified documents that you stash in your bathroom and jeopardize the safety of all Americans. It is, in fact, bad to rape people. It is, in fact, bad to ignore scientists during a global pandemic. It is, in fact, bad to raise taxes on the working class while cutting taxes for billionaires. It is, in fact, bad to be racist. It is, in fact, bad to pay illegal hush money bribes to protect a campaign. It is, in fact, bad to say that democracy will end after you gain power.
I could do this all day.
Deleted by author
Would you say that any of the things I listed are good? Or are you just going to not address facts and reality?
Deleted by author
I asked a direct question and you refuse to answer it. Since you can clearly read, I am forced to assume that you know all of those things are bad but admitting it hurts your feelings so you instead rely on avoidance behavior instead of confronting reality.
Edit: I also didn’t say any of the things you claimed I did. You are just lying at this point. It’s pathetic.
Deleted by author
I've always found this "criticism" pretty funny.
I get the point of it is to be absurdly reductive, and to insinuate a reflexive, unthinking mindset where it doesn't matter what Trump does; the response will always be, "Orange Man Bad". Use of the "orange man bad" criticism ends up being more of an indictment of those who wield it though than it is of his critics. It's not like there's a failure to elaborate the specifics of each of his misdeeds. The information is out there and widely available to anyone who cares to take a look. That being the case, when specifics are given and Trump supporters or other malcontents dismiss it as "orange man bad" they are really displaying that they don't care to see why the complaint exists. It's a tactic of ignoring a legitimate problem, and hand waving it away under the pretense that there's nothing behind it. It's lazy and/or willful ignorance.
Beyond that, I don't think I've ever seen a Trump critic unironically use that phrase. If you'd like to see it though, here you go. Ultimately, this "criticism" fails to take into account that yeah, actually "orange man bad". Like, that's the legitimate reality of the situation. Trump is awful and he provides near endless examples of that. The guy is genuinely, unambiguously bad.
Deleted by author
That's just blatantly untrue. I don't see any Dem calling for disbanding the Department of Education. Stances on environmental protection are also starkly different between the two parties. Voting rights protections, abortion rights, access to medical treatment for transgendered people, funding of and access to Medicaid and food programs... how many more do you want?
Deleted by author
The phrase "hold your nose and vote for ___" exists entirely because voters turn out for candidates who they aren't 100% with.
You'd agree that the 2020 primary is quite a bit different from the current scenario we're looking at, yeah? As the Brits say, chalk and cheese.
As far as prescriptive policy, yeah, I'd love to see more, and wish it were more politically viable. That's the point where we need to start talking about extended strategy, which the US citizenry needs to get a better grasp on if we're going to claw our way forward. In the mean time harm reduction is a valid mindset.
Deleted by author
I'm undecided as to whether you're a troll or just an unfiltered idiot. I am sure that there's not a third possibility though.
Troll. They have a year-long posting history they deleted to try and hide their bad-faith bullshit. They're just here to be an asshole.
Deleted by author
If winning an election requires dumbing things down for the idiots to the point that nuance and substance disappears then maybe America is a failed experiment. Either way, you're obviously not participating in good faith here.
I do a lot of complaining about the Democrats and their offputting tactics, but I'm having a hard time believing you're actually engaging with any of this in good faith and simply bothered by the unfriendly responses.
These complaints just seem like repeating slogans rather than engaging with the actual failings of the Democratic party because the idea that they have no policy beside "Orange Man Bad" is just obviously untrue. Plenty of real criticisms, but that one's just nonsense. Add to that that the "Orange Man Bad" refrain originated with and is primarily in use by conservatives and this whole thread just doesn't pass the sniff test.
Deleted by author
Regulatory agencies have been captured, scotus is corrupt, women's rights have been taken, the largest industries are enriching a miniscule handful of Americans, fascism is increasingly coming into style and our noble democrats have only just started a new grand strategy of.... name calling?
Forget about getting people fed, using the new immunity ruling, stacking courts, or any serious material change for Americans. We are fucked.
A doomer .ml account. How original.
Seriously. Doomerism and defeatism are just pathetic and detrimental. When has giving up and rolling over in the face of opposition ever led to anything good? Especially when so much is at stake and worth fighting for every step of the way.
Finally?
It's all they have been doing for 10 years, this is just the latest programming as the others have all been disproven to the masses.
More of this bullshit? My god is this weak. No Republican gives a shit about this, nor does anyone not an already solid democrate.
The Republican reaction disagrees with you. It's oddly put them I'm quite the tailspin, which I personally do think will have an effect on turning off some Republican voters. I don't think it will pick up many voters, but it may indirectly dissuade some.
*you* do.
I am not a republican lol
You’re acting kind of weird.
lol *yes you are*. You claim to be a democrat but you've got a lot of Republican genes in your beliefs. Also The way you talk is definitely Republican.
Look if you want to "pass" as a Democrat you're going to have to do a lot more work and maybe hide some of your more Republican tendencies in like a closet or something.
You'll never be a *real* dem but you might fool some folks if you keep putting on democratic clothes and practice passing.
But *i'll* never accept you, and it's important to me that you know that, and what that means.
I'm not a democrate either. In the land of sanity I am a left leaning libertarian.
If you don't like what I say and think, then the likely difference between you and me is sanity.
Ah, sorry i don't recognize that as a "real" political position. Make up all the fancy names for your beliefs that you (and people like you) please, but here in the real world you are Republican. That's that.
EDIT booo i think he blocked me, sensing somehow the colombo-esque point i was trying to make slooooowly closing around him. Beer says he couldn't figure out what it was tho, even though i made it pretty blatant.
A pity, soft but clever types like him will never learn their lesson. At least this savant isnt american...
Yeah I'm blocking you because I don't communicate with the insane.