Dem Post Mortem

[Colonel Sanders]

The country consists of over 300 million people with varying desires, needs, hopes, and dreams

And the world consists of over 7 billion.

That doesn't act as a justification for selecting desires, hopes, and dreams that harm, or for tolerating that harm because it's happening to someone else.

You are as much of a casual fascist as Emily Lake and yes YOU are a fascist too, just a weaker and wimpier sort that I somehow have LESS respect for than the obvious Nazi, because at least the obvious Nazi doesn't hide their support for the nazification process behind self-unaware platitudes that they are only *leaning* right rather than running there.

You call Jimmy Higgins a "fascist" ?? Mr. Higgins impresses me as a rational centrist. Where in Heck do you get the idea he is a "fascist"?? Obviously it wasn't the post you quote. Can you point to anything that Jimmy has written that validates your insult? Note that staying home on Election Day 2024 or voting for Nader in the 2000 election -- if that's what the accusation is -- does not make someone a "fascist."

(Although perhaps irrelevant to my question, the very definition of "fascist" is controversial. I hold with those who define the term as an approach to obtaining political power rather than any particular social or economic ideology.)

I do not see much "rational" about "centrism". I see it as a vote to pretend that the knives are not being sharpened in preparation for our backs, especially over the last 30 years.

I just have no respect for that.

What makes someone a fascist is, I think, the utter spinelessness in the face of all of this, because of someone didn't want it to happen, they would not be doing the things folks like me have been saying for decades are the things that make that happen.

Eventually, this whole political powderkeg is going to ignite and I'm going to be right in the fucking middle of it, in Minneapolis, a stronghold of "progressivism".

I'm going to be in that mess when it comes here, and I can only hope that the work Info between now and then makes ANY difference for ANYONE.

I have heard Jimmy repeatedly talk about how "people" don't want this and "people" don't want that and "these policies are not popular enough" like their inability and disinterest in helping people understand and accept those policies isn't part of the reason.

I've lived long enough to know when people use "people" as a proxy, what they are really talking about is what they want.

Thr democrats lost because they could not deliver a message of "strength".

"Strength" can be delivered in a lot of ways, and what people of different walks of life understand as "strength" varies. For people on the right, it's being told all your life that someone is strong and associated with strong people and is good at stuff and is "successful". It means having all the right coincidences line up to be given power. It means not getting caught. It means being "stronger than the rules", and having and using leverage.

On the left, it generally means being strong in other ways. To me, it means holding to your principles, and having good principles, principles for the benefit of everyone, even when it hurts you personally.

On the right, it means being strong enough to stick someone's face in the fire. On the left it means being strong enough to pull someone out of the fire even if it means you get burned.

It has never ever meant shrugging your shoulders and doing nothing. It has never been rolling over.

I find 'centrism' and fence sitting in a world where people literally want to line up and shoot leftists in the streets, where this is preached to whole churches of nodding fools, as to be one of the least rational positions.

If conservatism is locking the lower decks off and underfilling the life boats and saving furniture, and leftism is people screaming to eat the rich as they drown behind the gates, Centrism, today, is "rearranging deck chairs". It has every appearance, every last one, of doing nothing at all while the world burns and hoping nobody doesn't notice that your number would be sufficient to overpower the guards and throw open the gates.

How are we supposed to interpret the higher interest in the trains running on time over the lower interest in keeping those trains from being loaded with minorities?

Then try harder. Nobody is saying that 3M people voting for the winner are not more responsible for his electoral win

That is literally what was said:

"You want to blame the pragmatic acceptance of the general American public with enabling fascism. No... the people in Florida that voted for Nader are responsible."

Jimmy wants us to excuse those who intentionally enable fascism, and attack those who may have lost one state in one election because they were tired of endless garland wars and wanted a president who could spell.

You accusing Jimmy of being a facist is similar to Barbos accusing Ukrainians of being Nazis!

One important difference is that I did not accuse Jimmy of being a fascist, whereas Barbos does routinely accuse Ukrainians of being Nazis.

It's more, I really just wish a lot of the people enabling fascists would wake up and say to themselves "oh shit, have I been enabling fascism with my political choices? Maybe I have!" And then maybe live with a little more anxiety, in exchange for ceasing to enable fascism.

When someone is asked explicitly to do that, and told repeatedly over the course of decades that this is what is being done, and then doesn't do that, and instead leans towards the policies and concerns of the "center" between people who want to burn down the world and the people who want to reinforce it, now, against such burnings, what is someone to ascertain but that they are one of the people who do actually accept the burning?

What exactly is a “fascist enabler”? Are you trying to say that people that you deem as fascist shouldn’t be able to vote? How specifically is Jimmy a fascist enabler?

I think I saw it said best on Handmaid's Tale, in the very last episode: not fighting was how they ended up with Gilead in the first place.

What more can you say about someone who has had this pointed out to them, is on the doorstep of Gilead, and insists on "enlightened centrism" of not fighting, or at least supporting those who would?

Yeaaaa, I don't agree! I think that your side, favoring candidates that are so far to the left that they are unelectable, benefits the "fascists" as you hurt dems that can reasonably win. There is no doubt that if Gore had won, that Trump would be weaker today because he wouldn't have the supreme court right now. A majority of voters have very clearly stated what they want: politicians who focus on the economy to make their lives better now. If that is too far right of a position for you to take then I can't help you.

Amazing endorsements of that post you have there. Sorry @Swammerdami, you're in bad company there.

Look at this strawman of an argument! Your supported candidates were the ones who rolled over. Gore rolled over. If Gore had had the strength progressives demand of candidates, Gore wouldn't have lost.

But this isn't about Gore, however weak he was in the end This is about Hillary and Harris.

There is a really easy way to make sure that Dems who can win who are not going to bow to fascist aims win: vote for the Dems who are not going to bow to fascist aims. Support those Dems. Don't pretend that they are "unelectable" because their "unelectability" is a Tinkerbell effect, and it ends as soon as you stop letting yourself and your peers believe it without challenge.

It's really that simple.

Of course, the Dems you elect, the actual people you think can "win elections" do not make Americans lives better, now or ever really. All they do is, ironically, act conservatively to resist the backslide of the whole country, but in the weakest way possible.

They don't oppose citizens United or big money in politics.

They don't support corporate tax rates that would actually improve the lives of their constituents.

They don't even support raising the minimum wage.

They don't support single payer solutions.

They don't support taking big pharma down a peg.

If all you support is keeping the trains running on time, you will eventually be issued a ticket on a train you would rather not be on.

They put justices on the Supreme Court.

This inarguable fact seems to never have the impact on far leftists that it should. I shouldn't have to explain the paramount importance of SCOTUS and I'm tired of doing it. Go read a summary of Marbury v. Madison. Then maybe you'll begin to understand why voting for the perfect instead of the good-enough is one of the most destructive mindsets a person can have.

 

[Jarhyn]

They put justices on the Supreme Court.

Somehow, they even failed this part at least once, and *that failure is exactly why we are where we are at*.

You also act as if any dem president wouldn't have appointed a sane SCOTUS judge.

But rather than Pelosi and the Dems shouting the justices off the bench at the appropriate times, the Pelosi Effect *lost us a second seat*.

I'm just not seeing this "victory" you claim that your milquetoast rolling-over do-nothings accomplished.

Yes, the SCOTUS is of paramount importance so why should I have respect for the people who fucked it up the same way that the Feinstein and Pelosi era dinosaurs (and Democrats in name only) have been fucking up everything else?

Perfect is only the enemy of the good if you still vote for the "perfect" in the main election, but people won't even see the good as "good" at all of it can't stay clean enough through the primaries.

Seriously, this kicking and screaming "No! NO! No PROGRESS!" Tantrum being thrown here over being told "don't run primaries in bad faith, as if the outcome is foregone".

If you don't want to deal with people having standards, with people demanding candidates that aren't going to lean into fascism, just admit it.

Of you wanted to argue Dem successes, you might not argue a point where the Dems fumbled not once but twice in a fucking row!

 

[Politesse]

They put justices on the Supreme Court.

This inarguable fact seems to never have the impact on far leftists that it should. I shouldn't have to explain the paramount importance of SCOTUS and I'm tired of doing it. Go read a summary of Marbury v. Madison. Then maybe you'll begin to understand why voting for the perfect instead of the good-enough is one of the most destructive mindsets a person can have.

I think you're the one with a fuzzy memory about the Court and how that all played out, if you think it is the progressives rather than the accomodationists who are responsible.

 

[Jarhyn]

they are realistic and know that a lot of those things won't be passed

Tinkerbell effects: "being realistic" means that someone's behavior ends up subtly shifting so that they end up missing the opportunities that would actually get it done, here, and the fact is that pushing to get it passed is exactly what they should be doing.

The belief that it will not pass and the action in acceptance of that belief is exactly the behavior that makes the belief true.

It is capitulation in advance and capitulation in advance is mealy-mouthed weak fascism enablement.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

They put justices on the Supreme Court.

Somehow, they even failed this part at least once, and *that failure is exactly why we are where we are at*.

You also act as if any dem president wouldn't have appointed a sane SCOTUS judge.

But rather than Pelosi and the Dems shouting the justices off the bench at the appropriate times, the Pelosi Effect *lost us a second seat*.

I'm just not seeing this "victory" you claim that your milquetoast rolling-over do-nothings accomplished.

Yes, the SCOTUS is of paramount importance so why should I have respect for the people who fucked it up the same way that the Feinstein and Pelosi era dinosaurs (and Democrats in name only) have been fucking up everything else?

Perfect is only the enemy of the good if you still vote for the "perfect" in the main election, but people won't even see the good as "good" at all of it can't stay clean enough through the primaries.

Seriously, this kicking and screaming "No! NO! No PROGRESS!" Tantrum being thrown here over being told "don't run primaries in bad faith, as if the outcome is foregone".

If you don't want to deal with people having standards, with people demanding candidates that aren't going to lean into fascism, just admit it.

Of you wanted to argue Dem successes, you might not argue a point where the Dems fumbled not once but twice in a fucking row!

Not voting for Gore didn't help America in 2000. It didn't change the Democrat party. Not voting for Clinton in 2016 didn't help America. It didn't change the Democrat Party. Not voting for Harris in 2024 didn't help America. It didn't change the Democrat Party.

Why is doing the same one more time going to result in something better, when in the past, they have been gargantuan mistakes?

 

[Jarhyn]

They put justices on the Supreme Court.

Somehow, they even failed this part at least once, and *that failure is exactly why we are where we are at*.

You also act as if any dem president wouldn't have appointed a sane SCOTUS judge.

But rather than Pelosi and the Dems shouting the justices off the bench at the appropriate times, the Pelosi Effect *lost us a second seat*.

I'm just not seeing this "victory" you claim that your milquetoast rolling-over do-nothings accomplished.

Yes, the SCOTUS is of paramount importance so why should I have respect for the people who fucked it up the same way that the Feinstein and Pelosi era dinosaurs (and Democrats in name only) have been fucking up everything else?

Perfect is only the enemy of the good if you still vote for the "perfect" in the main election, but people won't even see the good as "good" at all of it can't stay clean enough through the primaries.

Seriously, this kicking and screaming "No! NO! No PROGRESS!" Tantrum being thrown here over being told "don't run primaries in bad faith, as if the outcome is foregone".

If you don't want to deal with people having standards, with people demanding candidates that aren't going to lean into fascism, just admit it.

Of you wanted to argue Dem successes, you might not argue a point where the Dems fumbled not once but twice in a fucking row!

Not voting for Gore didn't help America in 2000. It didn't change the Democrat party. Not voting for Clinton in 2016 didn't help America. It didn't change the Democrat Party. Not voting for Harris in 2024 didn't help America. It didn't change the Democrat Party.

Why is doing the same one more time going to result in something better, when in the past, they have been gargantuan mistakes?

Who the fuck cares about Gore right now? This thread isn't about Gore.

Clinton should not have run in 2016. That would have helped America.

The fact is the failure of the Democrat party to change was caused by you, and Clinton, and Harris.

People tried to change the Democrat party and you and your actions and your statements in support of the actions and statements that lost the election are YOUR fault, are the fault of the people, including Clinton herself, who failed to listen to the people saying the absolute bare minimum for "good enough" required fair play during the primaries.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

They put justices on the Supreme Court.

Somehow, they even failed this part at least once, and *that failure is exactly why we are where we are at*.

You also act as if any dem president wouldn't have appointed a sane SCOTUS judge.

But rather than Pelosi and the Dems shouting the justices off the bench at the appropriate times, the Pelosi Effect *lost us a second seat*.

I'm just not seeing this "victory" you claim that your milquetoast rolling-over do-nothings accomplished.

Yes, the SCOTUS is of paramount importance so why should I have respect for the people who fucked it up the same way that the Feinstein and Pelosi era dinosaurs (and Democrats in name only) have been fucking up everything else?

Perfect is only the enemy of the good if you still vote for the "perfect" in the main election, but people won't even see the good as "good" at all of it can't stay clean enough through the primaries.

Seriously, this kicking and screaming "No! NO! No PROGRESS!" Tantrum being thrown here over being told "don't run primaries in bad faith, as if the outcome is foregone".

If you don't want to deal with people having standards, with people demanding candidates that aren't going to lean into fascism, just admit it.

Of you wanted to argue Dem successes, you might not argue a point where the Dems fumbled not once but twice in a fucking row!

Not voting for Gore didn't help America in 2000. It didn't change the Democrat party. Not voting for Clinton in 2016 didn't help America. It didn't change the Democrat Party. Not voting for Harris in 2024 didn't help America. It didn't change the Democrat Party.

Why is doing the same one more time going to result in something better, when in the past, they have been gargantuan mistakes?

Who the fuck cares about Gore right now? This thread isn't about Gore.

It is about sober reflection on cause and effect regarding a particular action... ie... not voting pragmatically. A vote for Nader in Florida diverted America on its future path. We'll never know whether 9/11 could have been prevented. We certainly know that Iraq would never have happened. $750 billion or so spent in Iraq wouldn't be on the ledgers. We can't say for certain whether if 9/11 did happen whether Gore would survive in '04 if the GOP went to war with him over it. But we do know certain things, like the disappearance of the Surplus, massive tax cut, Iraq War would not have been a thing.

Votes for Nader helped lead America off the path.

Clinton should not have run in 2016. That would have helped America.

Clinton won the primaries. Sanders campaigned for Clinton. Clinton shifted left on several things. Had Clinton been elected, 2017-2020 would have been much different. And maybe this alt-right fascist movement gets defeated and finally goes away. Instead, Trump wins, gives the fascists momentum, and GOP gets to name three SCOTUS justices, setting us back a generation. And the result of all of this Joe fucking Biden becomes the candidate in 2020... where is the progressive vibe with that dude?

The fact is the failure of the Democrat party to change was caused by you, and Clinton, and Harris.

That is poor logic as the people who didn't turnout, didn't change anything in the party. The Party realizes they can't rely on certain voters, which means they have to appease other voters. In not turning out, these people are making the Democrats look more Centrist.

People tried to change the Democrat party and you and your actions and your statements in support of the actions and statements that lost the election are YOUR fault, are the fault of the people, including Clinton herself, who failed to listen to the people saying the absolute bare minimum for "good enough" required fair play during the primaries.

This again goes to the issue of pragmatism and some not understanding the pulse of the nation. Sanders made a great Primary candidate (even though he wasn't even a Democrat!). He, however, would have made an awful General Election candidate. Any single pro-USSR thing he did would have been plastered on the airwaves, he'd been castigated as a pro-communist, he'd been demolished in the General Election. You saw what the GOP did to Kerry with the Swift Boat Vets... and he was running against a Draft Dodger who's Dad got him into the National Guard. Sanders also represented a more Populist view... and populism sucks because it is all hat, not cattle. What we need to do, verses how in the heck are we going to do it.

Currently, because people didn't show up to vote for Harris, we have a President who engaged the State National Guard in order to intentionally incite more violence in an American city. The result of this will not mean Ocasio-Cortez is the nominee for the President in 2028. We don't even know if there will be an election, as we know it in 2028.

 

[Elixir]

He, however, would have made an awful General Election candidate.

Not in evidence.
I agree with your broader point but we do not know how Sanders would have done. He would have attacked Trump with the truth instead of with half assed politically correct critiques. He would not have let Cheato off the hook at the “you’re the puppet” moment; he would have twisted the knife. Trump would not have gotten away with gooning over his shoulder while he was speaking. The tenor would have been MUCH different.
I hold out the strong possibility (not necessarily probability) that Trump would have been defeated - which is what he actually expected and wanted.

 

[Jarhyn]

It is about sober reflection on cause and effect regarding a particular action... ie... not voting pragmatically.

Whereas if the Dems had been a party that gave Nader a fair shake in their primary and had invited him to primary with the Dems, then he never would have been on the national ticket to spoil in the first place.

But that is not the subject of the thread and I think you know that. This is not about Gore v Nader especially since Bernie v Clinton happened in the primaries, and the damage Clinton did to herself, through her conduct in the primaries, happened as a result of that.

Clinton won the primaries. Sanders campaigned for Clinton

If someone wins the first half of the game by cheating and the crowd turns on them to the point where morale is lost and the second half turns towards the opposition, they didn't really "win the first half" then, did they?

Learn the meaning of Phyrric victory.

Dems have been snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, and it's such a joke and repeat mistake now that it's a meme.

Clinton campaigned against Clinton by not campaigning fairly against Sanders.

That is poor logic as the people who didn't turnout, didn't change anything in the party. The Party realizes they can't rely on certain voters

"our repeated betrayal of your faith should be overlooked so we can betray your faith again".

The party can't "count" on certain others because certain voters have been told unequivocally that their concerns will not be addressed.

Instead of people who would make strong, assertive positions in response, we got passive responses.

It is exactly this passivity that caused things like the correct party not being called the "right" party, that got us branded as "the left" in the first place.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

A small group of voters did A to make B happen.

B didn't happen... all three times.

We are noting A doesn't work... and the response to the people that turned out and voted for the only viable option is we are enabling it.

In that span of 24 years, this small group hasn't been able to grow an effective and successful third party (mainly as we are stuck with a two party system with our voting system). At best, they have elected leftists in strongly liberal districts (possibly gerrymandered). And despite their failure to enact much change in the system, they are standing upon a pedestal screaming they are still right, boasting with pride and will do A once again, but according to Jarhyn in this thread, not for B to happen, but in pure spite.

 

[Jarhyn]

A small group of voters did A to make B happen.

B didn't happen... all three times.

If you want to make a claim about As and Bs, actually fill in your A and B and let's see if that makes sense, shall we?

Seeing as you are making claims about As and Bs without doing that, it sure feels like you have no claim to make.

From my perspective the A that didn't work to make B was "telling you our concerns so they may be addressed and then voting with you to elect milquetoast centrists", and the B was "the concerns being addressed", it sure as shit seems as if you got what you wanted, because what many want at this point is not in fact to make B happen.

What was done was "break the power of the people within our own party who didn't listen and got us to this point".

Honestly, I have days where I think that the only way that America will have the cultural change necessary to say "never again" to the bullshit that got us here is to have it happen here, for real, in a way that we understand must never be repeated and for which we understand the pattern of its repetition well in advance of its arrival.

Either way, the indication is that there are vast irregularities with the voting process itself on 2024.

The real election happened in 2016, with Hillary, and the betrayal of Sanders, and his endorsement doesn't unmake the actions she took in the primary against him, it doesn't unmake the running of Biden to the exclusion of all others, and it doesn't unmake the failure of the Dems to stand on messaging that would actually have an effect.

The reality is that the Dems allow and accept and do not question "Congressman rapes" vs "Democrats pass rape bill", and they don't censure the folks who need it.

If nothing else, the Dems could very well have passed into omnibus the inability to filibuster a SCOTUS nominee, or to lower the requirements to overcome such a move, or changed rules so as to exclude senators under censure from counting towards the quorum of the body, and censured them.

They had an opportunity to change the rules in a real and substantive way, and they lacked the political will to do so because the reason the Dems failed is because they didn't get the requested spine transplant.



Actually look at that and tell me you can't really see it!

Maybe after this, we'll get more "Germany vs AFD" on this shit.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

He, however, would have made an awful General Election candidate.

Not in evidence.

The evidence is the fact he hasn't done much in Congress his entire life. I'd say Norman Thomas did more than Bernie Sanders and Thomas was never in Congress.

I agree with your broader point but we do not know how Sanders would have done. He would have attacked Trump with the truth instead of with half assed politically correct critiques. He would not have let Cheato off the hook at the “you’re the puppet” moment; he would have twisted the knife. Trump would not have gotten away with gooning over his shoulder while he was speaking. The tenor would have been MUCH different.

Haven't you learned yet that Trump isn't defeatable when it comes to tactics? The high road doesn't work, the low road doesn't work. Trump is a political enigma. Even the party he "a member of" isn't stopping him from his tariff war which is going to cause the GOP a lot of pain. The Billy Bush tape would have buried any other candidate. Person to person, Trump can play the bully card or the pity card. No other politician would get away with playing the pity card in a debate. Trump defies convention. I do wonder if Buttigieg would have been able to manage it. He is remarkably savvy on his toes. But otherwise, tactics against Trump just aren't something that works because Trump defies convention.

I hold out the strong possibility (not necessarily probability) that Trump would have been defeated - which is what he actually expected and wanted.

Against Sanders? Very doubtful. Communism ads would have been relentless.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Actually look at that and tell me you can't really see it!

Maybe after this, we'll get more "Germany vs AFD" on this shit.

What I see is that the Democrats have shifted to the right since HW Bush. Reagan sold the people a great story full of bullshit and seemed quite intent on wanting to believe it. Clinton (centrist) came in, managed to defeat an incumbent. Gore followed suit. He was another centrist on many things, though if you talk to TN GOP'ers they'd say he lost the plot and became quite liberal. He lost, in part due to the weaponization of attacks against Clinton. But barely. Since then, generally centrist candidates have been coming out of the primaries because the people voted for it. The party, for the last several years, in part caused by the unexpected catalyst of Sander's candidacy becoming a lot more popular than most expected, the Democrats are having some push and pull with the liberals. Clinton shifted her platform notably is in a left direction because of Sanders' unexpected success. Some on the Left want more. I'm not exactly certain what though. They almost sound like Trump supporters or conservatives up in Canada who "want change". I want the Democrats to move further left, but understand that with the unpredictable turnout of the far left, the Democrats have to heed more to the hearts and minds of the suburbs. Also, with the GOP being ironically a stubborn ass since 1995, the House and Senate have made passing legislation and agendas remarkably difficult. I get that some want to rid the world of the filibuster, but that is just terribly short-sighted insanity.

Seeing this for as it is, makes me, according to you, an enabler of fascism. I haven't been too happy with the Dems since the late 90's. But, in general, there weren't many options. And the GOP has gone so far down the shitter, it has become a Hobson's Choice in the booth. I voted for the centrist Democrats in the General Elections since 1996 because our rights were at stake. And no matter of progressive pride would over ride the damage the right-wing would do.

 

[steve_bank]

Polls in the news this morning while some may disagree with Trump's methods around 70% supportt a crackdown on illegal immigration.

Biden was tone deaf on immigration and how people feel about the economy.

You can look at the democratic responses to riots in La over immigration crackdowns, apologetic for the rioters. The same as what happened in Settle during the riots. As violence, chaos, and damage grew the mayor and city council made excuses. The mayor compared it to the 60s 'summer of love' in SF.

Democrats are not living in reality.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Polls in the news this morning while some may disagree with Trump's methods around 70% supportt a crackdown on illegal immigration.

Biden was tone deaf on immigration and how people feel about the economy.

Biden wasn't deaf on the economy, that was why he wasn't saying the economy had good indicators. He knew they didn't believe it. They believed in too large of numbers, that they were better off four years previously, an abject falsehood.

Illegal immigration wise, it is one of those "are you against" crime things. People support stopping crime, but they wouldn't supported their homes being bugged to stop crime.

You can look at the democratic responses to riots in La over immigration crackdowns, apologetic for the rioters.

Isn't this about mitigating riots through proper control of the situation. For instance, in Akron, we had the Jayland Walker shooting. People were protesting. So the City closed the roads to traffic around City Hall, reducing traffic. Then they set curfews. That was it. They allowed protests to occur, but sucked a bit of oxygen from it to keep hooligans from taking over. There was damage, but not that much. Had Akron responded with a heavy hand, it just escalates things and then the sociopaths take control.

Trump over-reacted the protests in LA, intentionally. He wants to start something. Far right-wingers love escalating stuff. LAW AND ORDER... except when it involves themselves. Escalation as the first option is rarely a productive thing.

Democrats are not living in reality.

Some are, some aren't. How you deal with protests is a social thing. Treat the people like human beings and things can go a positive manner. Treat the people like criminals and things can turn south fast. Neither are warrantied.

 

[Politesse]

The party can't "count" on certain others because certain voters have been told unequivocally that their concerns will not be addressed.

This is the point that these "centrists" just can't seem to understand. They seem to think that they are owed minority votes, that blacks and browns and gays and the rest all owe them fealty because they aren't Nazis. They make no effort to convince people that their lives will actually be better under Democrat rule, only that they won't get worse. Whereas Trump is, at the very least, willing to promise people things. He's lying, but he talks big. Democrats talk small and expect unswerving loyalty for it. It makes no sense, their strategy, and it obviously isn't working.

 

[Politesse]

Polls in the news this morning while some may disagree with Trump's methods around 70% supportt a crackdown on illegal immigration.

Biden was tone deaf on immigration and how people feel about the economy.

You can look at the democratic responses to riots in La over immigration crackdowns, apologetic for the rioters. The same as what happened in Settle during the riots. As violence, chaos, and damage grew the mayor and city council made excuses. The mayor compared it to the 60s 'summer of love' in SF.

Democrats are not living in reality.

So now you support the president commandeering the state National Guard, to use as his private army accountable to no one? Some "liberals" we have around here! Just what freedoms do you care about?

 

[steve_bank]

Biden campaigned on that he was creatine jobs at a fast pace.

While reporting was saying increasing numbers of working people were complaining they can nor make ends meet.

Polls and pundits showed that knowing who Trump was they voted for Trump because they thought he would make the economy better for them.

In t\he news polls show people favor republicans for strong leadership.

The old democrat mantra of increasing social programs and government give always did not work. The old democrat paradigm of playing to nominates did not work.


Biden red t buy votes by forgiving student debts, which he had no authority to do. Like Trump does he tried to find a way around it.

That the democrats did not have candidates ready eating in the wings with a plan and supported an aging Biden was a a catastrophic mistake. They are disorganized and leaderless.

Biden clearly had diminished capacity, I saw it. I see it in people around me.

He was struggling to stay in the moment, stiff. When walking his turns were stiff not natural. I saw the body language. A lot of concentration required.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The party can't "count" on certain others because certain voters have been told unequivocally that their concerns will not be addressed.

This is the point that these "centrists" just can't seem to understand. They seem to think that they are owed minority votes, that blacks and browns and gays and the rest all owe them fealty because they aren't Nazis. They make no effort to convince people that their lives will actually be better under Democrat rule, only that they won't get worse. Whereas Trump is, at the very least, willing to promise people things. He's lying, but he talks big. Democrats talk small and expect unswerving loyalty for it. It makes no sense, their strategy, and it obviously isn't working.

It isn't "working" (Dems just lost the popular vote for the first time since 2004) because, in part, some people aren't voting. You think the Democrats think they are owed the votes of minorities and progressives. They aren't. But minorities and progressives will see their rights rescinded with the GOP in the White House. Again, it is a Hobson's Choice, yet some people keep making the same error.

 

[Jarhyn]

The party can't "count" on certain others because certain voters have been told unequivocally that their concerns will not be addressed.

This is the point that these "centrists" just can't seem to understand. They seem to think that they are owed minority votes, that blacks and browns and gays and the rest all owe them fealty because they aren't Nazis. They make no effort to convince people that their lives will actually be better under Democrat rule, only that they won't get worse. Whereas Trump is, at the very least, willing to promise people things. He's lying, but he talks big. Democrats talk small and expect unswerving loyalty for it. It makes no sense, their strategy, and it obviously isn't working.

That's the thing though... Leaning into what Nazis want, to lay groundwork for building Gilead, is not a good way to actually convince anyone they aren't Nazis.

The fact is, they have not paid attention to history and the Weimar Republic, and how indifference and decorum and "keeping the trains running on time" turned them down that path.

We can see exactly where that strategy leads, because it has happened previously, and it has been visibly stymied by actions such as Germany takes to disempower whatever label their Nazis rebrand themselves behind.