• 58 Posts
  • 3.32K Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 30th, 2023

help-circle
  • Yeah, it was a single judge, and multiple Dems are gone too, Kamala is apparently in Hawaii, so a tie would have lost.

    Every single fucking person with a D by their name needs to be in DC madly scrambling around the clock to do any and everything possible to mitigate imminent damage right now.

    Like, I won’t lie. A single judge is more than I expected, and I’m happy we got it.

    But fuck it, we have the Senate, a single vacancy when Biden hands over the keys is too much.

    https://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/judicial-vacancies/current-judicial-vacancies

    45 vacancies, 15 pending…

    And one got voted today when they have the numbers?

    I don’t say it enough, but Chuck Schumer is a fucking problem and shouldn’t be in a party leadership position. Compare him to the Republican counterpart Mitch McTurtle. That dude spent decades saying courts was the number 1 priority, literally all thru Chuck Schumer’s political career.

    It’s been wildly effective but also done in an unethical manner

    And yet when Trump is about to move in with a Senate majority, and we have an ethical manner to fill every vacancy…

    Why aren’t we?



  • He went on to address the allegations against him, saying he deems them “worth less than nothing.” “Under our laws, a man is considered innocent until proven guilty. If AG Garland (an unprincipled D-bag) could have secured a conviction against Gaetz, he would have, but he knew he could not. Case closed,” Musk added.

    This probably a biggest eason why Garland was the absolute stupidest choice for AG Biden could have made.

    Obama nominated him for SC, because he knew no one would get a hearing, it literally didn’t matter.

    Obama didn’t really want Garland on the SC, because it would be a wasted appointment compared to what Republicans seat in the bench.

    But Biden’s old ass didn’t understand what was happening. So he actually appointed Garland as AG, and seemed to honestly have expected Garland to do anything.

    And trump supporters never know what’s happening, they knew the name from before Trump took office as Obama’s SC pick. Assumed that meant Garland was hyper partisan, ignored everything he did say, and when no one was held accountable, used it as “proof” that there was no evidence

    The only people that was ever happy with Garland as AG, was Garland and neo liberals who also rarely understand what’s happening.


  • I’d have to have created a Twitter account at some point for that…

    But if someone did have one, they should just delete it.

    A steady stream of farewells would give them something to unite over and talk about.

    Just fucking delete the account.

    I don’t know why everyone has the obsession with “winning” by getting a last word in like that.

    If you want to piss people like this off, just ignore them. They’re literally throwing tantrums for attention, and people really think giving them attention is a positive.

    You think “later loser” would piss Elmo off, but that’s what he wants.


  • The rich 100% would.

    But it doesn’t matter, because the narrative of that happening would translate to more votes than literally any advertising all the money in the world could buy.

    Seriously, absolutely nothing could ever help a Dem become president more than all the wealthiest people in the country losing their shit over just the possiblity that a Dem becomes president.

    An alien invasion wouldn’t unite American voters as much as that would.

    The reason Dems keep losing, is we’ve lost the “anti-establishment vote”.

    The party turning their back on them would be all people would talk about, it would fill the news cycle the entire campaign.

    And even though media would present it as a terrible idea…

    That’s how they presented trump to, look at how that worked out.


  • “following politics” is not the same as “voter engagement”.

    Someone that never pays attention but votes R every two years like clockwork for example.

    They’d be “do not follow closely” on that, but if they 60 years old and voted R every election since they’re were 18…

    How exactly are they “politically disengaged”?

    They’re still voting, just not paying attention.

    Like, there are loads of over things we’re going to have to clear up for you to understand, but getting that difference is step 1.

    If you understand this mistake, we can probably move forward and cover other stuff. But if you don’t get this comment, nothing past it is going to be productive.

    A lot of this is coming from the horrible headline that co flates the two, and is outright false.

    So far trump has the most votes, he literally won with the politically engaged, because those are the people who voted.


  • You should try reading more than just headlines…

    Because people who only read headlines, are the ones to blame for these clickbait headlines even on genuine scientific articles.

    In all likelihood the author had nothing to do with the headline, and the only reason the headline is there is so the article gets shared by people who won’t click talking about how dumb it is.

    And then the few who actually read articles correct them.

    More comments mean the post gets seen more, and people talking about how the article isn’t as bad as the headline gets more to click on it.

    You’re the reason they have to use shit headlines, and they’re exploiting your behavior to compensate for it.

    It’s honestly genius, but my guess is you’re going to get mad they’re able to predict people like you so well.





  • The irony that you can’t see she’s saying the same thing I am is too much bub

    If you really think me and her are disagreeing, then me repeatedly explaining this won’t help anyone

    My advice would be asking someone else for assistance, maybe how I’m explaining it is the problem. But I don’t think it is.

    Edit:

    So no one else has to click on a twitter link:

    I’m afraid that you’re organizing people into a burning house. The Democratic Party has demonstrated that it would rather have Republicans win than to disappoint its donor class & actually embrace the policies that would make the material improvements to those people’s lives that you’re talking about. There’s a reason why Kamala Harris would not support an arms embargo. She took more money from Raytheon than even Donald Trump did. She’s a part of an administration where the secretary of Defense was a Raytheon board member. These are material realities that are constraining the politics of the Democratic Party, & no nice lady coming along or nice man coming along who loves his grandkids & eats an ice cream cone, & put sunshades on and hangs out with Barack Obama can change that reality."

    When election day rolled around, she still did the same as me:

    Advocating for mitigating damage when that was the only other option.

    When talking about next election, she says we need a better candidate. Same thing I’ve been saying.

    Like, I understand that we agree, but trying to get you to understand that has been insanely frustrating


  • It’s worse than that.

    The current DNC determines who gets leadership positions by who brought the most in

    Bring in 10 million from lifelong Dem voters who show up rain or shine and volunteer?

    Sorry, someone just got 250 million from a fossil fuel corporation to get Dems to be pro-fracking, so now they’re leading the party.

    What’s crazy is so many people defending the DNC on this and insisting we have to keep doing anything the rich ask, even though their money will never get back all the votes being pro-fracking get us.

    It’s not just that either, Sam with border wall, funding genocide, and lots of other shit.

    Both parties cater to the wealthy, because both parties care more about money than votes.



  • Right.

    But one thing we should also know is that running a bad candidate who is better than the only other option isn’t enough to decisively beat even the worst possible Republican.

    Voters should have all voted for Kamala even though they didn’t want her to be president due to her policies. That would have mitigated the damage.

    They didn’t do it in 2016 either, and Biden only squeaked thru because Trump was actively in office and Bernie stayed till the end to pull Biden left. If either of those didn’t happen, the strategy would be 0 out of 3.

    It’s clearly not an effective strategy compared to running a candidate who already agrees with Dem voters

    So rather than stomp our feet and being mad at the people we need in 2028, maybe spend the next four years bringing them back into the fold and running a candidate that people actually want to win the election?

    Like, we’ve tried stomping our feet for 8 years now since Hillary, do you think any of that has helped?

    Because to me, it looks like all it accomplishes is increasing donations from people who want Dems to lose, and turning dlteliable Dem voters into non-votets.

    Stop worrying about if you’re right.

    Start worrying about what can win 2028, and if that will actually translate to fixing shit


  • For some reason all the headlines about this seem to be about what the DNC or the Harris campaign should have done.

    Wait…

    You’re surprised people are blaming the candidate that lost and her campaign team that was paid millions of dollars and spent over a billion and still couldn’t beat trump?

    Why?

    What is the logic where the people whose literal job was to win the election, aren’t at fault for losing the election?

    And I’m scared to even ask, but:

    Since you think they’re blameless, does that mean you really want us to do the same shit in four years again and hope this time screaming at people will be effective?

    Cuz buddy, it’s never been effective at anything besides letting some shitty republican into the Oval


  • Every time I see these posts “dunking” on Elon on Twitter…

    I just can’t help but think if everyone who disagreed with him just left, him and his supporters would just turn on each other.

    The only reason they’re there is to argue, no matter who else is there, they’re gonna argue.

    Reasonable people being there just give them someone to unite against.

    Don’t give them the common enemy, and they’ll fight each other, and be less unified for the next election.

    Anyone still spending time on twitter (regardless of their personal politics) is just helping trump.


  • No, neoliberals and Republicans working together to destroy campaign fundraising regulations is what led us down this path.

    The wealthy just buy both parties now in the primary so they don’t have to even worry about the general.

    Not holding our noses and voting for the least worse option just means the Republican wins the general. That won’t make the DNC change the type of candidate they run, they’d rather lose to a Republican and keep their positions at the DNC.

    So we try to fix things in the primary by getting a progressive.

    If we cant then in the general, we still vote D to mitigate the amount of damage.

    Like, that’s not just what I do, it’s what literally every progressive I know in real life has been doing for decades now.

    What have you been doing if not that?



  • Maybe with the people you spend time with.

    But lots of people are putting work in, all over the country.

    Just don’t expect to hear about it from the party, or any of the big media organizations owned by billionaires for the express purpose of maintaining the status quo so they can keep their ill gotten wealth.

    Quick edit:

    Not sure why you’re talking about the 60s like everyone was hippies…

    The majority of the population back then was fighting school busing like Biden was to preserve segregation, or the ones screaming insults and throwing rocks at children for going to the school they were told to attend.

    Like, it’s important to understand the present, but you can’t do that when you’re obviously confused about the past…


  • We have that…

    Like, you don’t need to convince voters that shit is broken, everyone is well aware shit is broken.

    There’s just not an option that will honestly try to fix the root problem fucking everything up:

    Wealth Inequality

    When both parties are pro-corps and anti-worker…

    The problem isn’t growing a movement of voters, it’s finding a way to get a candidate past the primary so they can win the general.

    Every election there’s two fights:

    1. Fight the DNC moderates in the primary

    2. Fight the Republicans and the DNC moderates in the general

    If we don’t win the first one, there’s a very strong chance the candidate who makes it to the general won’t be able to beat the Republican in the general. Because they’re not what the politically disengaged want.

    The good news tho is that there is very very few voters who would even want to pull another PUMA and vote R in the general if a progressive makes it. Some will 100% try it. And the media will shit their pants trying to convince us it won’t work.

    But it can still work just as well today as it did 16 years ago when they voted R instead of for a Black guy with a progressive campaign.

    There’s very few neoliberal voters, it’s just the people running the party pretend that’s the base.