Hillary Clinton too.
And Elizabeth Warren.
Naw, she got Bernie Sanders’d
I wasn’t old enough to be politically involved when Al Gore ran, but I heard he had good policies. How many people can tell you what policies Kamala ran on?
She had a website, she promised to tax the rich on it. There were even some rightwing nutjobs producing cartoons about it claiming an unrealized gains tax would ruin the economy.
An unrealized gains tax would never make it out of committee, much less actually passing either house of Congress. She took absolutely zero risk w/ that one because everyone knows it’s not feasible.
If we vote for the Tax The Rich candidates then the Rich will get taxed.
Instead the anti-tax rich candidate won.
When has that ever actually happened? Like anything else, there will be exceptions upon exceptions because the rich have the money and influence to successfully lobby Congress.
And the rich already pay the most in taxes, and the richest get loopholes:
The top 1% of earners pay 45.8% of income taxes.
If you think the top 1% are going to pay even more in taxes without a massive concession, I’ve got a bridge to sell you.
Harris couldn’t pass that even if she actually, truly cared, and I fervently believe she’s just pandering to the left for votes. I don’t think she actually believes in most of the policies that made headlines, I think she just wanted to be Biden 2.0. She said as much in interviews, and it’s why she lost: she couldn’t convince her base that she’s actually different.
If you wanted actual, meaningful change from the left, Bernie Sanders was your best bet. I don’t even think he was that good of a candidate, but he actually seemed to believe in what he promised.
The tax laws that the GOP wrote in 2016/2017 expire this session and now they’re back in power to write the new ones.
Republicans have been the party cutting taxes for 50 years.
In 2023 they proposed tax raises across the board in order to have a chance of passing the senate with their 50 seat majority (with caucus) against the 49 Republicans, while they simultaneously expanded benefits like medicaid expansion so as to redistribute wealth to those who need it to survive.
GOP is the enemy. Remove the GOP, first and foremost.
EDIT: And also the Democrats removed money from politics from 2003 to 2010 until Conservative SCOTUS nominations struck it down with the “Citizens United Decision”, which every democrat has campaigned against since.
GOP is the enemy
No, the enemy is the two-party system. The GOP is merely a symptom of that larger problem. The GOP proposing terrible bills doesn’t imply that Dem bills are “good,” they’re both generally quite terrible since most representatives don’t really need to worry about their seat since their district is likely uncontested, so they’re more beholden to special interests than their constituents.
Fix the electoral system and maybe I’ll entertain a discussion about the GOP being “evil.”
Gore’s election was the first I could vote in.
I voted for Kucinich in the primary and then traded my vote for Gore in a swing state for a vote for Nader in MA.
Then my “Al Gore won the votes” bumper sticker was torn off my car while I was at work at Cracker Barrel.
Will you please tell me more about trading your vote? Are there communities online where you can meet people willing to do that? How did you do it during the bush/gore election? Online? I live in MA, I’d trade a vote w a swing stater, assuming we have elections again.
It works like this: they say they will wote your choice if you vote theirs. Then both of you end up voting an orange ape.
Yep, it was done over the internet. The idea was to get Nader to 3% without electing Bush.
Neither happened because people are terrible and we can’t have nice things.
5%. You need 5% for the federal grant.
Thanks. As you can tell I am very old.
She was pro fracking. Got to line those pockets afterall.
And Trump? What’s his policy about the environment? Please, do enlighten us!
The Rapture. Trump’s plan is to utilize the environment to Rapture the entire species, all at once.
That explains the Zionism, at least.
Eh what the funk did I just read!!?!?
You just read highly classified top secret plans regarding mass emigration to the Kingdom of God.
You mean deportation?
The heritage foundations actual plan. Why we are funding the war in Israel. Isreal needs the one state solution so white evangelicals can have their rapture.
They’re in dire need of psychotherapy.
As always, any criticism for harris is interpreted in bad faith as support for trump.
No argument, no talking points, no facts, no sources, just a biased opinion and a salty comment.
That’s not criticism. That’s badmouthing.
I’m tired of these people pointing at one candidate’s speck of dust, while ignoring the other candidate’s plank to justify not voting against a fascist dictator.
She was pro fracking.
Maybe she was. Maybe she wasn’t far left enough. And so, because of that one specific detail, that as enough to tip the balance and swing the vote for the guy who is not only very pro fracking, but also for destroying the entire ecosystem and environment scorched-earth style.
I’m so f… tired of the double standard.
I’m tired of these people pointing at one candidate’s speck of dust, while ignoring the other candidate’s plank to justify not voting against a fascist dictator.
You assume that about anyone with any criticism whatsoever of harris.
I voted for harris; you just can’t abide anything other than unconditional worship of her.
Maybe she was. Maybe she wasn’t far left enough. And so, because of that one specific detail, that as enough to tip the balance and swing the vote for the guy who is not only very pro fracking, but also for destroying the entire ecosystem and environment scorched-earth style.
And you’re doubling down on the bad faith assumption that criticism of harris is support for trump.
I wasn’t criticizing your comment. I never implied that you had voted for the other guy.
And I have no worship for her. She’s a politician. I only had hope, for the country and for the world, that the other guy wouldn’t take power.
She was pro fracking. Got to line those pockets afterall.
A lot was implied in that comment the person wrote. Implying that she is corrupt.
That isn’t criticism. That is badmouthing.
And that is what I have a problem with. The double standard, and the gratuitous smearing. That’s what revolts me. That’s what upsets me.
As much as I hate having to use the word, this genuinely is whataboutism. You’re being provided with a legitimate criticism of one candidate and instead of actually addressing it you just point to a different candidate.
Yes, it is. And I don’t give a f.
I’m so f… tired of the double standard.
I’m tired of these people pointing at one candidate’s speck of dust, while ignoring the other candidate’s plank to justify not voting against a fascist dictator.
She was pro fracking.
Maybe she was. Maybe she wasn’t far left enough. And so, because of that one specific detail, that as enough to tip the balance and swing the vote for the guy who is not only very pro fracking, but also for destroying the entire ecosystem and environment scorched-earth style?
Oh, she showed she was just a little bit more right than center, she wasn’t left enough, so I’ll vote for the far-right fascist instead.
Every time I read some comment like what the person above wrote, I get to remember that these voters are “just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know…”
Criticizing a candidate doesn’t mean you voted for the other major candidate. It just means that the challenger to the other major candidate sucks. The DNC needs to run better candidates to actually convince people to show up and vote for them.
No argument, no talking points, no facts, no sources, just a biased opinion in a salty comment.
A lot was implied in that comment. Implying that she is corrupt. That wasn’t criticism. That was badmouthing.
And that specific style of badmouthing usually insinuates justifying a non-vote, which in this case, meant a vote for the the other guy.
She wasn’t absolutely perfect, and she wasn’t the absolute exact perfect fit for everyone. And yes, her campaign could have been run better. Nobody’s perfect. No one can please everyone. But hey, at least she didn’t wear a tan suit!
It’s not a double standard, you’re just butthurt about having your preferred candidate being held to any standard at all. “Maybe she was” is bullshit, it’s extremely easy to verify that she was, you either don’t care enough to find out or you know perfectly well already and are deliberately lying. She was a shit candidate fielded specifically for her loyalty to corporate dems and their billionaire backers, the only people who are still pretending otherwise are incurable morons or paid propaganda posters. I don’t know or particularly care which you are, either way you’re a spineless sack of shit. You should be ashamed and silent, in that order.
Because it’s an either-or choice. We were always going to get either Harris or Trump. Criticism of one candidate must be viewed in the context of the only other alternative. So calling out Harris on fracking is only meaningful if her position was substantially different than Trump’s. And if their positions are really no different, but only one candidate got called out for it, then the criticism is irrelevant and that makes me question the motives of the accuser.
That’s the awesome part about democracy: you get one of two shitty choices.
*American “democracy”.
Other countries don’t have this problem, most picked other voting forms than “first past the post”, which over time destroyed our ability to have more than two actual serious political parties. So both those parties get overtaken by ethically dubious people, overtly for the entire republican party, and subtly with the establishment democrats, and it all collapses.
Yes but we don’t live in other countries. We live in the stupid one.
Other countries don’t have this problem
Have you seen the recent elections in Germany, Poland or France? Literally the entire western world is at risk of fascism. The problem isn’t “first past the post”, the problem is capitalism.
Whataboutism
Shitpostingism
Average liberal
Let’s list out all the good and bad policies Harris and Trump ran on then see which is the lesser of 2 evils.
I don’t think Kamala could even tell you what policies Kamala ran on.
Straight up cash to help buy your first house. I wasn’t thrilled about it.
Only for immigrant first generation home buyers with no other members of your family owning a house and after you had lived in government backed apartment housing for more than 2 years.
Same way her business loan suggestions were only for specific communities with super strict requirements.
Set it up “help” so restrictive to only “the people who actually need it” so that you don’t have to give out any at all and just sounds good on paper. They don’t want to actually help people, Democrat leaders just needed to keep status quo.
provide working families who have paid their rent on time for two years and are buying their first home up to $25,000 in down-payment assistance, with more generous support for first-generation homeowners – or homebuyers whose parents don’t own a home.
Nothing at all about “immigrants”. Where did you hear that bullshit?
Mostly pro immigrant news sources that were happy about the benefit this would give directly to those communities and the fact that it targets people that have no other family members with a house in the US which those of us with older parents who were born in the US likely have.
The $10,000 credit for only first time homebuyers was a later addition and was not even set as it was more an additional thought tacked on and does nothing for actually giving money for the down payment but only credits you after you bought it.
Not helpful.
deleted by creator
Specifically, it targets individuals and families who have paid their rent on time for two years and are looking to buy their first home. The proposal offers up to $25,000 in down payment support, with more generous assistance available for first-generation homebuyers, meaning those whose parents do not currently own a home.
Proposed a $10,000 tax credit for first time home buyers.
Yeah, it was a shame it was so restrictive, literally was also set for a limit of 400,000 individuals when first proposed too.
Its a criticism of the garbage solutions that were brought forward for good headlines rather than actual support.
This plan will significantly simplify and expand the reach of down-payment assistance, allowing over 1 million first time-buyers per year – including first-generation home buyers – to get the funds they need to buy a house when they are ready to buy it," the Harris campaign said.
You keep making shit up. One million > 400,000.
The Biden-Harris administration initially proposed providing $25,000 in downpayment assistance only for 400,000 first-generation home buyers—or homebuyers whose parents don’t own a home—and a $10,000 tax credit for first-time home buyers.
This is from Harris’s campaign announcement. The extension to millions would be the 4 year plan. And was adjusted again after Biden’s original proposal of this was panned for being what I originally sourced. The very last offering she made by the end of the campaign was looser on restrictions.
I was incorrect, in that she removed the tax credit and made wider eligibility though stated that those still meeting the original criteria would get more assistance, though all would be required to meet the 2 year of proven rental payments through an assured rental agency.
I voted for Gore, but a bunch of my moron friends voted for Nader in that election. And Nader an ego was so big he could never admit fault for fucking up the next 2 decades of our country.
Now it looks like we fucked for the rest of this century.
Thankfully the Left learned from this mistake and added ranked voting
Oh wait that was New Zealand. But yea, everything since 9/11 is Nader’s fault
So you think increasing military spending in exchange for having no healthcare, and supporting a genocide is correct?
I’m so glad that the one that did win ended the genocide, got us universal healthcare, and decreased military spending… oh wait…
Wow, it’s almost as if there wasn’t a proper candidate?
Harris was the correct option.
only option.
Clearly not, she lost
Do you have eyes and ears? Are you currently alive and breathing with minimal brain functionality?
Harris was CLEARLY the correct option.
You must be wearing horse blinders. Remember to keep to the track. Turn left. And left. And again. One more time. It’s the final stretch now…
Congrats, you placed fifth. Your odds are now 44-1.
Left? Like Dale Earnhardt and Hillary Clinton, she failed to turn left, then smashed into a fucking wall.
deleted by creator
Not my favorite candidate. By any means. Better than what we have with Trump? Absolutely undisputed. It’s not even a conversation. Wild that someone would even try to contend it.
Welcome to the reality of the broken US voting system bud
And instead of doing anything to fix it, I’m jerking off to what would have happened if another terrible candidate would have won.
I’m just in the spectator seats, we have preferential voting in Australia (not a perfect implementation, but probably one of the best in the world.)
Despite this, still under capitalism. So. Not rosy.
Just that, not voting tactically - while fighting like hell to get a third party candidate in, or get enough members of the less shit party to push through voting reform - is stupid.
It’s stupid.
A shit candidate that’s less shit, is still less shit.
This is the spoiler effect, and being high and mighty about not having voted is your copium. There may well have been enough people like you to have avoided a Trump presidency.
And if you think there’s no difference? Then you’re getting high on your own righteous supply.
Anyway, I’ll be over here enjoying my slightly left of centre government, and actually have a viable pathway to getting further left parties elected here. 🎩🦘
You’re insufferable because you think you’re better than everyone else who actually understands how the voting system works.
not voting tactically
In most of the US, who you vote for literally doesn’t matter, because your state will go to the candidate from whatever party has won your state for the last couple decades. Unless you live in the 8 or so states that could actually, realistically flip in a given election cycle, there’s literally no point in voting for the lesser of two evils.
Going into any given election, I can say with high certainty that my state will go to the dominant party with a 15% split with very high confidence, and that all votes outside of the top two will be under 5%. The only way for this to not happen is for the minority party to run a very strong candidate, the majority party to run a very unpopular candidate, and for a large third party to steal a ton of votes from the majority party… And even then, you’ll probably trim the gap to 5% or so and the majority party candidate will still win by inertia.
If you understand that, you can be free to actually vote your conscience and pick one of the third party candidates. If third party candidates collectively get enough votes to actually spoil an election in your area, maybe you have a chance to get voting reform discussed on the media, and if the majority candidate doesn’t get 51% because of it, maybe it features in the debates.
So until the gap between the top two candidates narrows to where all third party voters collectively voting for the second candidate could actually flip the state, I’ll keep voting for a third party candidate.
I love how any criticism of your chosen deity makes you think I didn’t vote, or believe that there’s no difference between the two.
Incredible.
There was a correct candidate and an incorrect candidate. America chose incorrectly.
If she had run a competent campaign she would have won, I’d say that the DNC chose incorrectly but that’s not true either, they chose a candidate that aligned with the interests of their billionaire backers because they knew they’d get paid whether she won or not
If she had run a competent campaign she would have won
Lol. The fact that you think Kamala didn’t run a competent campaign, while her opponent was a felon rapist who has confirmed lied more than any other president in U.S. history, sent a mob to our capitol to assault police, illegally attempted to overturn an election, and makes time every single day to divide Americans tells me all I need to know about your intellectual capacity.
Anyone that points a finger at the non-felon rapist traitor habitual liar and says they should have run a better campaign is fucked in the head and needs to get their priorities straight.
Whataboutism
Fuck off back to whatever Putin-compromised chanboard birthed you
Any criticism of liberals means I’m alt-right?
Is your name Israel, by chance?
I think it’s more correct than sending the FUCKING MARINES TO SHOOT AT PEACEFUL PROTESTERS IN YOUR OWN FUCKING COUNTRY. Something something Tiennemen Square…
And you were fine with sending marines to shoot people in other countries, stop whining that it happens to you.
When did I say I was fine with it? Also we are still doing that too. GTFO with your all bad choices are equally bad bullshit. That’s not how the world works.
The feddieverse is still a small place, so PSA @BrainInABox@lemmy.ml is really just here to troll some both sides stuff. If you try to have some dialog where you ask what their alternative is they will just never answer. They are just here to troll and grand stand about how much they care, but not enough to do something material for the cause.
When did I say I was fine with it?
When did I say “bad choices are equally bad”, you hypocrite?
But I’ll comfortable interpreting you complaining about using marines domestically rather than just on foreigners to mean you think one is worse than the other.
Gotta love the freaks over here complaining about a prosecutor with a doctorate in law while a felon rapist traitor descends fascism upon our nation and sends the military to assault Americans.
Pull your head out of your ass.
Yes it’s truly macho to lose elections. Big muscle energy. This person is stoked to lose the next one. As long as they’re “correct”… jfc.
The President deploying Marines inside the U.S. without invoking the Insurrection Act, declaring an emergency, or getting local/state approval — especially just to respond to peaceful protests — is unlawful on multiple levels:
- Violates DoD Directive 3025.18 – Active-duty military (including Marines) can’t engage in domestic law enforcement unless explicitly authorized.
- Violates the First Amendment – Peaceful protest is protected. Military suppression = unconstitutional. (NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886).
- Violates the Fourth Amendment – Military detentions/searches are illegal without cause. (Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32).
- Ignores Posse Comitatus limits – PCA (18 U.S.C. § 1385) applies to Army/Air Force, but DoD extends it to all branches.
- Unlawful military orders – Troops must disobey unconstitutional orders (UCMJ Art. 92; U.S. v. Calley, 48 C.M.R. 19).
- Impeachable abuse of power – Violates Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution.
This isn’t just controversial — it’s flat-out illegal.
EDIT: Formatting EDIT: Better Citations: (DoDI 3025.21, Enclosure 3, Section 3)
https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/302521p.pdf
- EXCEPTIONS BASED ON MILITARY SERVICE. By policy, Posse Comitatus Act restrictions (as well as other restrictions in this Instruction) are applicable to the Department of the Navy (including the Marine Corps) with such exceptions as the Secretary of Defense may authorize in advance on a case-by-case basis.
LISTED EXCEPTIONS
a. Such exceptions shall include requests from the AG for assistance pursuant to section 873(b) of Reference (al). b. Requests for approval of other exceptions should be made by a senior official of the civilian law enforcement agency concerned, who verifies that: (1) The size or scope of the suspected criminal activity poses a serious threat to the interests of the United States and enforcement of a law within the jurisdiction of the civilian agency would be seriously impaired if the assistance were not provided because civilian assets are not available to perform the mission; or (2) Civilian law enforcement assets are not available to perform the mission, and temporary assistance is required on an emergency basis to prevent loss of life or wanton destruction of property. 4. MILITARY READINESS. Assistance may not be provided if such assistance could adversely affect military preparedness. Implementing documents issued by the Heads of the DoD Components shall ensure that approval for the disposition of equipment is vested in officials who can assess the effect of such disposition on military preparedness. 5. APPROVAL AUTHORITY. Requests by civilian law enforcement officials for use of DoD personnel to provide assistance to civilian law enforcement agencies shall be forwarded to the appropriate approval authority. a. The Secretary of Defense is the approval authority for requests for direct assistance in support of civilian law enforcement agencies, including those responding with assets with the potential for lethality, except for the use of emergency authority as provided in subparagraph 1.b.(3) of this enclosure and in Reference ©, and except as otherwise provided below. b. Requests that involve Defense Intelligence and Counterintelligence entities are subject to approval by the Secretary of Defense and the guidance in DoDD 5240.01(Reference (ar)) and Reference (j). 24 Change 1, 02/08/2019 ENCLOSURE 3 DoDI 3025.21, February 27, 2013 c. The Secretaries of the Military Departments and the Directors of the Defense Agencies may, in coordination with the ASD(HD&GS), approve the use of DoD personnel: (1) To provide training or expert advice in accordance with paragraphs 1.e. and 1.f. of this enclosure. (2) For equipment maintenance in accordance with paragraph 1.d. of this enclosure. (3) To monitor and communicate the movement of air and sea traffic in accordance with subparagraphs 1.d.(5)(b) 1 and 4 of this enclosure. d. All other requests, including those in which subordinate authorities recommend disapproval, shall be submitted promptly to the ASD(HD&GS) for consideration by the Secretary of Defense, as appropriate. e. The views of the CJCS shall be obtained on all requests that are considered by the Secretary of Defense or the ASD(HD&GS), that otherwise involve personnel assigned to a unified or specified command, or that may affect military preparedness. f. All requests that are to be considered by the Secretary of Defense or the ASD(HD&GS) that may involve the use of Reserve Component personnel or equipment shall be coordinated with the ASD(M&RA). All requests that are to be considered by the Secretary of Defense or the ASD(HD&GS) that may involve the use of NG personnel also shall be coordinated with the Chief, NGB. All requests that are to be considered by the Secretary of Defense or the ASD(HD&GS) that may involve the use of NG equipment also shall be coordinated with the Secretary of the Military Department concerned and the Chief, NGB.
Only illegal if someone enforces the law, and I have a sneaking suspicion the chances of that are low
You’re not wrong, but it’s important to call it out. And to CONSTANTLY call out the message to our troops that it is incumbent upon them to refuse to follow illegal orders.
Donny can’t possibly wriggle his way out of this one!
I said that about the stolen top secret documents because of all the obvious treason and the even more obvious° sending/selling of said documents. Yet the american public decided it was a good idea to vote him in once again so he could pardon himself.
Nothing will happen to him. I see no one over there with the backbone to do anything to bring him to justice. The best you can hope for is death or debilitating stroke.
The bad news is even if that happens today then Fatboy Tangerine has shown just how easy it is to be a dictator. The next guy will be more organised.(°Why obvious? There was a fax machine right there. A fax machine in a toilet. The fact that there was old tech like a fax machine shows what it was being used for, but to move one to a fucking toilet full of the documents is plain damning. Anyone who believes differently is either an idiot, or corrupt. Or both.
End of, full stop, no further explanation is needed.)We got him this time, fellas!
Thats what I thought about the mocking of the disabled man, the “grab em by the pussy” comment, the Epstein-thing, the impeachement, Jan6, the classified documents, Musks salute, …
If you have the majority of the voting public, parties, media and judges behind yourself then you are pretty safe doing illegal things, even in a Democracy.
He can’t luckily he doesn’t has to.
Uh so Trump is doing something illegal. So like, Tuesday?
Yeah, but this time it’s Very illegal, and Very not cool!
This seems like it was probably written by AI. Has anyone actually fact checked this?
It was. I keep seeing this at work. ChatGPT especially loves to add the unnecessary icons.
But is the information wrong?
At my work I have some serious privacy and security questions about what people are pasting into chatgpt.
No, the information is correct from what I can determine. But it would have taken me a lot longer to find the relevant sections of law and precedent and sift through them on my own.
I added the relevant citations for you
Hillary was right. Harris was right. Misogyny ignored them.
Lets not pretend the presidential election is all about gender and nothing else. Thats just not true.
hmmmmm… stats say otherwise. A lot of males did not vote for her because she was female. That said, US is clearly not ready for female president.
hmmmmm… stats say otherwise.
Can you show us the stats you’re talking about?
Remind me when you get a response.
it won’t happen.
There are also a lot of liberal women who didn’t vote for her because she’s a woman. They didn’t vote for Trump, they just didn’t vote at all.
A lot of males did not vote for her because she was female.
Where’s the data that show this?
I could understand Hilary not getting elected, but Harris? She’s as blank slate as any presidential candidate could get ( and maybe that was the problem). But the demographics which shifted the most politically, was the Hispanic and black male (whom tend to be less educated) voters towards the right. That could either be populism or misogyny, and considering they were leaning left when elected Biden the previous term, I’m leaning towards the latter reason.
She was also a candidate we didn’t vote for, Biden being shoved down our throats again then him dropping out are what gave Trump the election. The focus on her gender and nothing else is to keep you from remembering that the DNC fucked us again and a large number of voters protest voting because “She’ll genocide the Palestinians” like TRUMP wouldn’t.
“The DNC” does not have the power to force Biden to step aside when he doesn’t want to.
They aren’t a military or a government. They are a club, and Biden was far and away the senior member.
The fact that when it comes to politics I see Americans nowadays keep repeating over and over and over again “this can’t be done”, “they don’t have the power”, “that will never happen”, is to me astonishing. When I was growing up, America was where things HAPPENED. What happened to you guys? Where did this learned helplessness come from?
So your party structures are broken and unable to produce good outcomes? Change them. Reform them. Update them. What the fuck is wrong with you people? You made democracy into a fossil that you no longer fit in and you’re despairing. It’s supposed to be a living breathing thing that evolves all the time. WTF.
I have to agree, it is very weird that people treat their society like an thing set in stone.
40% of the country wants it to be worse in every way imaginable. They want more religion in the halls of power, more impressive law enforcement and mass incarceration, more dictatorial centralization of power, less education more environmental destruction more wealth concentration in fewer elites hands, less protections for workers, and their families, more poverty sickness and death.
They aren’t the same people either, sixty-70% want one or some of the things on that list.
If we declared a constitutional convention, I don’t think there would be any agreement whatsoever about what changes to make, and if there were, agreement, I expect they would be disasterous.
She’s a former cop and prosecutor that wasn’t selected through a primary process (not that Dems ever allow anyone not selected by party elites.)
She’s basically a Republican with zero progressive policies, which isn’t going to appeal to an increasingly radicalized base.
There were a lot of problems with her that had nothing to do with her being a her.
Democrats keep chasing votes to the right, abandoning the actual left and the working class.
If the Dems wanted to stop losing they could have selected Sanders. It’s not about gender, it’s about trust, and nobody trusted Clinton or Harris (nor should they, frankly). Meanwhile Sanders has spoken for the working class the whole time he has been around.
Remember how Dukakis got tanked by a goofy helmet? Yea, Harris sank when she couldn’t propose any change from Biden.
tanked
nice pun cuz iirc he was riding in one while wearing that helmet
Kamela lost because she’s a woman
I posted a post-deep-dive take on what gave Trump the presidency here, but I will say that misogyny did did no small amount of heavy lifting.
What we need to figure out before the GOP finds its next cult leader is how to neutralize the massive far-right propaganda machine that is churning out false information and disinforming the public.
We’ve decided before that ethically we can’t trust human beings to make sound decisions in some conditions. Gambling, for example. Sometimes humans get addicted to just giving the house their money when it’s coached in a probability game. But then we’ve just invented loopholes (and lootboxes) to circumvent regulation. So I don’t know how we’re going to deprogram massive viewerships of media that promotes hate, including misogyny.
If we fail then the
ice zombie armyclimate crisis (and running out of water for agriculture) is going to drive us to extinction.Were there other problems in Clinton and Harris than the gender, then? (Except them “lying” that Trump would use the army against US civilians, of course)
Clinton is a fuckin capitalist and Harris is a fucking neoliberal. Neither of them actually care about anything more than upholding the status quo. They are not working class or even for the working class.
This all being said, status quo is far better than fascism, but we can do better.
Basically, just like someone being a woman wouldn’t make them a bad president, it would also not make them a good one. Having good policies makes you a good president.
The status quo is a slow slide into fascism. And we are at the end of that slide. At some point, and that point was 2016, enough people would rather vote for the fascist than the woman that, at best, would continue the slow decline.
Agreed.
Good luck finding a presidential candidate with good policies in USA.
You asked what the other problems with them were, not whether there was a good presidential candidate, i was answering your question
No unclarity regarding that, don’t worry :)
Oki dokes! :)
Were there other problems in Clinton and Harris than the gender, then?
If it was misogyny alone was the cause, then why did harris lose across every single demographic of women? She lost across every single voting demographic of general voter except a 1 point gain in college educated white men.
We have polling data, we could dig through it-- and the results must be a statistical understanding of a number of reasons. There wont be a unifying single smoking gun across this many voters and issues. We aren’t that uniform of a group of people for that. Although there will be some that are larger than others, like Gaza, consumer prices, wage stagnation, and misogyny.
Dems are failing to honestly analyze why we lost, just like they failed to figure out how we could win. So we’re on track to lose again, and comments like the one you made show we arent making much progress-- or that we even have any will to.
women can be misogynistic too
Uh… If the misogyny was enough to remove enough votes from them to allow the worse candidate to win, then obviously it was a decisive factor. Being a decisive factor does not equal being the only factor.
No, it wasn’t the decisive factor. The misogynists wouldn’t have voted for Harris either way. The decisive factor was Harris failing to inspire her own base while pandering to the elusive “undecided voter” by propping up Liz Cheney, among other things. Don’t get it twisted, Harris lost because she and her team were too incompetent to read the room.
What is this the decisive factor you’re talking about? You can have several.
If the misogyny was enough to remove enough votes from them to allow the worse candidate to win, then obviously it was a decisive factor.
Sure, but how do we put actual numbers behind that “if”?
Yes.
That’s not what they said.
All? No, not all. But it is very evident that most Americans seem to hate women. The right hates on women, the left hates on women, the men and the women hate on women. If you doubt me, look how news articles disparage male senators compared to female ones.
Edit: All you four people who downvote without responding only give me more validation. The people hate the truth.
Americans didn’t vote for Hillary or Harris because apparently they wanted a whiny bitch to be president instead.
I have NO idea why the democrats chose Harris as the nominee. The country wouldn’t vote for a white woman last time. You REALLY think they’re going to vote for a woman of colour? REALLY? And then a bunch of them didn’t. As predicted.
The country did vote for a white woman the previous time: Hillary Clinton won the popular vote.
So you’re saying misogyny wasn’t the reason they lost then?
I’m saying that more people voted for Hillary Clinton than her male opponent, which flatly contradicts the claim that people wouldn’t vote for a woman. But let me ask the question: If the GOP nominated Kristi Noem as its candidate for president in 2028, would you rest assured that she couldn’t win because of misogyny?
That is true, but I will add that most people I knew that voted for Hillary also did not like her.
The people will vote for women, but a disturbing amount are unhappy about it. I don’t even like Hilary, but people were more biased against her than Biden for what feels like manufactured reasons to me.
The right wing propaganda machine had been at work on Hillary since even before Bill was elected President in '92, so that could certainly explain it.
There were a lot of issues with it being anyone else. Since she was already the VP and already “on the ticket”, switching to anyone other than her would have brought with it a whole lot of complications and probably would have tied up all the money the Biden campaign had raised. The whole process of deciding on anyone other than her posed huge risks, especially given the time constraints. Harris was effectively the default option so they took the path that appeared to be easiest and guaranteed that the campaign kept its funding.
Maybe the gender or color didn’t really matter to people who had a chance of voting Democrat anyway
Harris would have won if the Dem leadership let her run the campaign she wanted to. Instead they enforced civility politics and forced her to be the same as Biden.
I have NO idea why the democrats chose Harris as the nominee.
Well, that’s the thing: they didn’t. She didn’t win the primary, Biden did; and Biden won because there was no opposition. My ballot had two choices: “Joe Biden” and “Uncommitted”. I voted Uncommitted.
Biden made hay about selecting a Black Woman as vise President. That is declaring her heir apparent.
I mean is anyone surprised? The media’s capitulation and normalization of a felon rapist traitor and his enablers is why we are where we are. Because drama makes them more money and this nation lacks the rules necessary to prevent the media from lying to Americans.
I mean is anyone surprised?
I am genuinely surprised that we made it four years under his first term without getting this far in, but we’re speed running to military dictatorship inside six months.
If you actually read the article it is absolutely swimming in reactionary revanchism. There’s everything from the author defending Trump’s association with the Charlottesville rioters to whining about MSNBC sound-bites to referring to immigration during the Biden Presidency as a “Border Invasion”.
This isn’t even the boilerplate Politico “Lying when their lips are moving” false-equivalency. This is Derek Hunter, a talk radio frothing fascist and senior columnist for Townhall.com, doing exactly what his corporate handlers pay him to do.
All we need is more rules and theyll stop breaking the rules!
We need to reach out harder to the republicans, and we need more AIPAC money. Whoever gets the most election funding tends to win! (except for last time of course)
So lets reach out to AIPAC and ask how we can close on more campaign funding, and ask the Cheney family to send someone stronger than Liz next time, to stand next to Harris. Is Dick Cheney busy? Maybe he can shoot a dem in the face and have the dem apologize for it. I bet Dick Cheney would say yes to this.
/s
Everyone knows leftists are lazy idiots that’ll make up any reason to rationalize not voting. You’re rationalizing so hard now you’ve gone down some antisemitic rabbit hole.
removed by mod
care to clarify who you mean by ‘leftist’?
And then Harris completely disappeared as soon as the election was over, failing to challenge his extremely questionable victory in any meaningful way
Billionaires: " yes, she’s an obedient little soldier 👍"
It must be nice to have the billionaire’s hot air to fill your sails as you navigate these rough seas. However, woe betide those that displease the mighty donors, they will immediately find themselves in the doldrums, they no longer have a purpose and the billionaires await the next empty vessel.
It must be nice, it must be niice to have billionaires on your side.
It must be nice, it must be niice to have billionaires on your side.
If she had challenged it, she probably wouldn’t have won the challenge, AND she would have fueled a whole smattering of “SEE, BOTH SIDES ARE THE SAME” bs
Well if people were going to say stuff, it’s awesome that she didn’t do anything! Close call. \s
This is the same flawed logic as the folks saying that violent resistance will give the other side a “justification”, they’re gonna make one up anyway so there’s absolutely no point in abstaining from any given course of action for the sake of not giving them one. Even if it hadn’t worked it would have demonstrated some commitment to actually stopping Trump, but corporate dems don’t actually give a shit what happens as long as they’re still getting paid.
Fuck that, the situation wasn’t the same and EVERYONE knows it. The solution isn’t to avoid the whole thing so the accusation isn’t made, the solution is to do the right thing, and when the accusation is made, you slap them down HARD!
She was a weak candidate and had very little political capital, it was a wild shot, but she was just a better choice than Biden. The dem party has almost ZERO strong presidential leadership that the general, liberal or progressive population can connect with, and I’m pretty sure it’s by design.
AOC might have a chance of rising and gaining prominence but she’s still regarded broadly as “too young” to do more than take a senate seat, which would be great either way. Zhoran Mamdani is going to be a titan on the left if he survives the concerted efforts of zionist liberal America to melt his efforts, but if he succeeds he’s going to be busy in New York for years to come. David Hogg isn’t going to lead the nation, but he IS making worthless old dems literally cry, so there is some marginal hope for a rally by next midterms.
But we also may not have midterms at this point. We’re edging closer to martial law and general, fascist, authoritarian dictatorship, and the best we’re getting from Dem leadership is “strongly worded letters” from Chuck “Less Than Worthless” Schumer, Hakeem Jeffries likes to reiterate that “Trump has a mandate” and is basically Schumer’s little shadow. Cory Booker gained national attention by doing a publicity stunt to literally promote a book. Bernie Sanders is still a voice of power and influence but he’s definitely past the window of electability, sadly.
We need better representation and that doesn’t spawn from nowhere, we need people on the ground, getting involved in local community, city and county elections so that real people with real passion get national attention. It’s not that they don’t exist, it’s that the left and liberals broadly are sitting on their hands waiting for something to be presented to them.
We have to get out of the “someone will do something” mindset and get out and DO stuff, even if it’s just joining the protests right now.
After hearing from walz I kinda wished he was the candidate
I think he would have been a strong candidate a few election cycles ago, but likely not a winner in today’s climate. We have a LOT of pent-up rage in our population, as a result of our national “fierce independence” reaching its own “late stage” level.
Waltz has bite and sharpness that would appeal to a lot of people if he were un-muzzled, but he’s still not going to fit the “WWE theater” spectacle that engages the stupidest people, and which because of systemic sabotage of our elections, is the only segment of the population who votes anymore.
While I don’t like him at all, I think Newsom fits this role the best and might be the strongest contender if we have elections again. (And he will probably be more likely to cheat in some way.)
But we also may not have midterms at this point.
I suspect we will continue to have elections, but they will strategically select specific races throughout the country to tamper with in favor of the GOP, and they’ll increase the number of rigged races with each election until our entire electoral process has been captured and we end up with something akin to Russia or Venezuela. We’ll hold elections, but they’ll be a complete sham. We’ll (officially) be a one-party state with one other party of controlled opposition to give people the illusion of choice.
Instead of AOC (however much I love her and her message) I’m thinking Whitmer would be better and has a great track record. Walz would be stronger than AOC, if they let him hammer 'em with his wit. Andy Beshear would totally freak the GOP out and would be a great choice.
Walz is a zionist. So is Pritzger. A zionist wont win.
AOC might have a chance
We should really stop this.
I like AOC.
I also realize we just elected a rapist felon traitor insurrectionist and declined the last 2 females who ran for president, despite being WAY more qualified than a felon rapist traitor insurrectionist.
This is not the time and not the country to elect a female president, especially one so “green”. If we try to push AOC, we’re going to lose, again.
This is not how I want things to be. It’s simply an observation of this nation and how extremely unlikely it is to elect a woman president. It’ll be Bernie all over again, but probably even more of a shutout.
Do not blame it on being a woman, statistically they win the same rate as male candidates just run far less often.
It’s just being sexist for someone else’s sake.
This is not the time to run status quo and low effort candidates but loud and effective ones which we have a shortage of in the DNC.
Do not blame it on being a woman
I’m not. I’m blaming it on the American electorate, which is what I stated in my comment that you didn’t read thoroughly.
statistically they win the same rate as male candidates
Not for president they don’t, and if you read my comment thoroughly, you’d know that’s what I was talking about. Open your eyes bud. It was a woman or a felon rapist traitor who ALREADY FAILED ONCE AS PRESIDENT. We chose the rapist instead of the woman. Welcome to American reality.
And it isn’t just that she’s a woman. She’s a woman AND extremely liberal. That combo simply doesn’t work for a lot of the American electorate.
This is not the time to run status quo
I didn’t say status quo. Did you read my comment at all? You can run all sorts of people that aren’t status quo and also not a woman. I WANT A WOMAN PRESIDENT. Spoiler alert, it ain’t happening anytime soon in America. But if you’d like to ignore reality and lose again…that’s your right as a voter. That kind of behavior is why we are where we are.
The American electorate is not who is writing your comments.
You are distinctly ignoring other critiques to focus on gender as the main component. Do not assign your own bias to everyone else. We do not all think as you do and can’t be blamed for what you think to be true.
Statistically across the world women win elections at the same rate as men.
Support a female president you want then instead of telling them all that none of them can win because of their gender. It makes you sound like the sexist.
You’re like, on the edge of political awareness, but you’re kinda stuck on the wallpaper.
Setting aside that I also said she’s not the right candidate for the time, I know for a fact that the “woman president will never win” mandate is a manufactured talking point and a lot of otherwise smart people ate that story up because they thought the system was remotely balanced and that democracy wasn’t compromised. (as well as latent, bitter, cynical sexism oozing out of the country’s pores right now.)
Clinton won the popular vote. It’s not the gender of the candidate, it’s the energy of the electorate and their ability to sidestep very real corruption in politics by people like Elon Musk controlling AI and search engines, and very real KGB tactics being used on our populace.
Trump’s victories have been hacks. They exploited every angle to make it happen. The people who voted him into power are the minority, they don’t represent the average voter. Our problem is the “average voter” is staying home, because, and I cannot stress this enough, our society has been compromised, hacked, unfairly influenced. In this current climate we won’t see ANYONE the corporate oligarchs don’t want to see on the throne. The Democrat party is in on this. There’s a reason they’re trying to undermine the Dems who don’t take the checks like AOC and Zhoran, people who are basically enemies of their own party.
We rebuild this a piece at a time from grassroots, and we need to push the “gender” questions out of public discourse and stop falling for the distraction. Every other nation is electing liberal or left-leaning candidates, men and women alike. This isn’t a fair democracy in the USA anymore, we have to get out of this mindset that we “just need our own version of Trump.”
We need the popular mandate but we also need a way to get around the artificial bumpers the current oligarchy has set up. If you buy the idea that we need to remove women from the ballot, or we need candidates who are more “moderate” (IE: right leaning) you’re falling for the ploy, hook, line and sinker.
Lol.
Still blaming Harris as a coup unfolds.
So productive.
A challenge would have gone nowhere and given the other side ammunition. Focus on something worth your time.
Still simping for dems while they sit back and watch a fascist coup unfold, you’re as spineless as they are and a thousand times stupider. You have no idea whether a legal challenge would have worked or not, at the very least it would have demonstrated any commitment whatsoever to stopping Trump, but Harris doesn’t actually give a shit and never did, she just wanted money and power. You should focus on developing some dignity.
Still simping for dems while they sit back and watch a fascist coup unfold
Americans voted for it, dipshit. Americans voted the GOP into TOTAL CONTROL. Americans HANDED THE REIGNS to the GOP.
you’re as spineless as they are
Motherfucker, I vote for the Dems because I did my homework and KNOW they regularly vote in favor of the middle and lower classes, don’t threaten rights, and are historically better for our economy. I vote for the Dems because I’m not some dumbfuck like you and I know that we are nowhere near ending the two-party system in America so the INTELLIGENT thing to do is vote Dem to maintain our rights and prevent Republicans from gaining control and doing, oh yeah, exactly what the fuck they’re doing now. But you and the word “intelligent” don’t exist in the same space together.
You’re just whining like a little bitch about Harris while missing the bigger picture. Who the fuck cares if behind the scenes she was some power hungry asshole that just wanted her name in the history books? She was STILL, BY FAR, the more intelligent option. You aren’t just voting for the candidate you fucking loser, you’re voting for the party and the policies attached to it, which in the Dem’s case, is way better than the policy of fucking fascism.
You’re just a whiny little bitch. Get the fuck off .ml, that shit is frying what’s left of your brain.
As bad as his victory was, it wasn’t even vaguely questionable.
Of the people that turned out, more of them voted for Trump, plain and simple, even by the popular vote without having to complain about the electoral college.
The only objective fact that gives an asterisk is he didn’t manage to get over 50% of the popular vote, but he still had the most of any candidate.
I’ve seen the mentions of “inconsistencies” and “Musk manipulated the votes” but a read of them seems about as credible as 2020 election denials.
You’re not supposed to question the victory of a presidential election when done in free and democratic elections. Doing anything like that would be horribly anti-democratic.
It would be horrible if Harris had challenged Trump’s victory. That would just make her another Causescu/Trump/Mussolini.
It was an opinion piece by a guest columnist.
Who is a piece of shit, but regardless.
https://books.google.com/books/about/Outrage_Inc.html
he is derekahunter on siteformerlyknownasbirdsite
It was an opinion piece by a guest columnist.
That an editor then chose to publish. What’s your point?
Nearly every respectable major news outlet that has commentary tries to invite commentary from multiple sides. They also probably didn’t know what he would become or his ulterior motives.
Nearly every respectable major news outlet that has commentary tries to invite commentary from multiple sides.
Maybe that’s part of the issue though?
If Jimmy Allred says it’s raining, and W. Lee O’Daniel says it isn’t raining, Texas newspapermen quote them both, and don’t look out the window to see which is lying, and to tell the readers what the truth is at the moment.
I’m really torn on that. Because I want media to be unbiased, but I also want media to tell the truth.
Most media will simply report the truth of what other people say is the truth.
I suppose I’d opt for unbias over bias if those were the two options.
The Hill always lies. It’s an undeclared right wing propaganda site.
I can almost the trolls saying ‘well Ackshually he sent the marines, not the army! Pwned lozur!’
Instead of focusing on what is actually happening with National Guard and Marines being deployed, we see the pattern of pointless arguing in circles about why the candidate lost in the comments below. Analysis Paralysis is the exact intention for articles like this. This helps the current criminal administration continue their behavior.
The fact that people wish that she had won is the real problem.
Missed the whole point of what I said. The election is over, move on. Take this energy and prepare for the very real chance of civil war. Clearly, there is an administration in place that is pushing hard for this outcome.
I understand that the hill published this, but it was an opinion article. I get that some people value that, but they are almost never opinions of people that should have an opinion on the matter. Either way, I don’t consider opinion articles to be something that you can nail an organization to the cross over. Just sharing a perspective is all.
There have to be consequences for platforming fascists. This whole “civility and decorum” crap has got to stop, we are in a fascist coup and cannot afford to tolerate any enemy activity.
Our media has been completely complicit in the fascist coup because our news has been entirely captured by corporations hell-bent on profit maximization.
It’s called the court of public opinion. It doesn’t work if we don’t participate. And no one participates.
This whole “civility and decorum” crap has got to stop
…cool… You should tell that to someone that called for you to act with civility and decorum because I sure as shit did not.
enemy activity
🙄
Calm down combat carl. I fully believe the actual fascist coup to begin any day now, but falling face first into a rake is not exactly a fucking panzer attack. You’re trying to defend a clearly false and misleading post by misdirecting with semantics and sensationalism. I’m amazed you didn’t try jangling your keys.
People are already being shot in the streets, and the military has been deployed domestically in blatant violation of the constitution. People are being kidnapped by masked unbadged thugs and disappearing without any court appearance. What more will it take for you to recognize the coup?
Firstly, I never said that the coup didn’t exist. Is every response from you going to be a straw man of what you wish I would have said?
And secondly, was it a coup when it happened in Portland? Because I’m not seeing a distinction here. You can pretend all you want that this situation is different because of the obvious illegality, and this admin IS different, but the situations are identical in every fucking way.
I was in the military. It was 20 years ago but I’m reasonably confident that not much has changed since the “don’t ask” days. We trained on how to conduct operations IN populated areas. If you told me that we got our training from Steven Seagal, I would laugh my ass off. Would you like to venture a guess on who hires a shit stain conman like Steven Seagal? Yup, it’s those cops that you would argue are legal to deploy and “trained” for serving the public. Sadly, they are not. I trust a misplaced marine every day and all day over an unregulated highschool dropout. I agree it is wrong, but until they use actual bullets on domestic streets, I’m not really any more worried than I already am at the guys who WEREN’T trained for the military grade equipment they were issued.
Fyi, I was skeptical of your application of the word “enemy”, not implying denial. If you are using the word to describe cops then, of course, but it’s been this way since the very origin of cops so what makes now so special? But if you are using that to describe people, then I have no doubt that conservatives appreciate your assistance legitimizing their endeavors.
And if you think there is something to win on the streets of the US pushing back against the organized boots then you’ve already lost.
You should. Arguably, you should nail the to the cross for opinion pieces more, because opinion pieces exist to launder articles that the paper can’t reasonably justify publishing… but still really wants to publish.
They can be used for that but they are absolutely not solely for the purpose of misinfo laundering. That’s a proposterous and indefensible claim. Fucking ridiculous.
Look, you can dislike it all you want. I do. I dislike them. And I refuse to read opinion pieces, from anyone. That’s what you do when you’re intelligent. You check what you’re reading before you read it. Do you not check your beverages to ensure they aren’t floor cleaner? When your beverage tastes unpalatable do you not remember to check then? At what point does drinking a gallon of bleach become your own fault?
I hate ads. I stopped watching TV entirely because of how much I despise ads. I wasn’t good at manually filtering them out so the responsible things to do was to stop watching TV until I had a solution. So over the years, I found solutions. After a while I was able to use a smart phone completely free of ads. I filtered my data and was able to use a lot of sites again. Now I get all my media from Usenet. Every now and then I walk past a TV at work and it’s playing ads and I find it hilarious. I literally forget about ads. And hearing the simple fucks cry about YouTube and chrome is yet another joke for me.
I can’t imagine being so opposed to something only to invest absolutely nothing into remediation and then blaming everyone else for my failure to act. Because that is what you remind me of when I read your response. You don’t get to have your bleach and drink it too. At what point does reading an opinion article become your fault?
Misinfo? I’m talking about opinion pieces. “Israel has a right to defend itself” isn’t strictly misinfo, but it is, arguably, an opinion. And you’re correct. They’re not only used for opinion laundering - they also appear to be a sort of make-work program.
And I don’t know what conversation your tangent on what you’re reminded of comes from, but it’s not the one we’re having.
because opinion pieces exist to launder articles that the paper can’t reasonably justify publishing… but still really wants to publish.
Your words. Not mine. And this is what the tangent is about. You said we should nail them to the cross for publishing opinion pieces - something which I also abhor but happily accept the responsibility of avoiding. I’m not going to blame a capitalist organization for doing what a capitalist organization is always going to do. I’d be blisteringly stupid if I did that.
Once again, I’m not sure what conversation you think you’re having, but it’s not this one.
After seeing your rationale, I have no doubt you feel that way.
You should. Arguably, you should nail the to the cross for opinion pieces more, because opinion pieces exist to launder articles that the paper can’t reasonably justify publishing… but still really wants to publish.
Literally your words bro. It’s right there.
An agreeable position if those opinion pieces were written in good faith by a respectable journalist who knows what they’re talking about. Honest opinions are never wrong.
But in today’s news it’s just a way to publish straight-up misinformation and propaganda, they can just abuse their position to just say whatever and people internalise it because, well, it’s the news.
Journalists and news outlets used to depend upon a reputation of integrity and factuality built over the years. Now anyone can open up their “news” website, or be a politically motivated party with lots of resources, claim completely made-up stuff, and when those articles reveal themselves to be complete bullshit, nothing happens.
Also, the world seems to really have lost the conception of what is a fact vs what is an opinion, a deduction, a belief, and so on. Guess the nature of Internet communication doesn’t help with that.
Should organizations platform anything and everything? Should there be no standards?
Hey now, they blacklisted Katie Halper for talking about Palestine.
Never say The Hill doesn’t have standards.
That’s entirely up to them. I sure wish they wouldn’t, but capitalism is what it is. And if the mass of metaphorical Beakers hangs their hat on each and every controversial word regardless of bias, then they’re going to do that. If platforming chucklefucks keeps the lights on… So there it is.
There should be standards. Agreed. I have literally no say in that and my opinion means literally nothing on this. However, that doesn’t mean calling meaningless shit like this out doesn’t hurt the rest of us. I’m as sympathetic as the next person. It sucks. But if we are going to cry wolf and alligator tears every single time an already trash organization does a thing you - without a shadow of a doubt - expect them to do, then you are doing their work for them. Stop hitting yourself.
Take it on the chin, ignore them, and move on. I work in one of the most remote places on the planet with about 1000 conservatives, and these aren’t the GOP “gays are cool now” conservatives, these are the “gays are pedophiles and we should exterminate them all” conservatives. These are InfoWarriors and flat earthers. Deep state theory is assumedly foundational and antiestablishmentarianism is the MO. I pointed out, a single time, that even Alex Jones said Trump was “mobbed up with the russians” and I have been known as “the liberal” since then. These proverbial tweakers are drawn to plausible deniability like a catalytic converter. Sure, they are the lowest common denominator when it comes to human prototypes, but they are also the low tide and they know it. If they can sanitize bigotry then the cool GOPers will be able to use them to justify it. So we (the opposition to authoritarianism) need to sterilize easily defensible shit like this.
Look at the replies I’ve received… All I did was point out the plot hole in the assertion implied by OP exposed by the reality that one could say that “the hill” did not say it themselves and furthermore that the hill has a giant warning at the top of the article that literally states they DO NOT hang their hat on opinion pieces (and btw, fuck the hill but they do). All I’m pointing out is to not say the hill explicitly called Harris a liar, because based on the facts, they didn’t. Several replies still allude to the culpability of the hill… Which is best case scenario semantic when totally generalized, but more likely consolatory and akin to someone splitting hairs over “travelling” in street basketball.
“The right” could say that “the left” would polish brass on the titanic. And we could know that they’d said it too. But here we are, God forbid we pass a single piece of brass without giving it a mirror shine and then gasp Pikachu faces when the right says “see?”.
How did we lose the election? Shit like this. We need to be better than this. This is teaching a pig to sing.
Sensationalism is their game. Leave to play it amongst themselves.
I understand that the hill published this, but it was an opinion article.
Authored by a far-right talk radio host who fully endorses mass deportation and execution of liberal dissidents, sure.
This is where I challenge you to find a single opinion article published by the hill from a reputable person about a worthy opinion. And when you say “that doesn’t exist” I’m going to respond “no shit sherlock, that’s what an opinion piece is, a disreputable person seeking your unearned attention.” Good thing we gave it to them…
Also Marines are Navy, so…technicality?
🤣 Trump really is playing 5D chess. You can’t nail him down. He’s like a bar of soap, that is also a pedophile.
It’s worth nothing that “The Hill” has always been liberal garbage.
Um ackchyually it’s the Marines and National Guard.
If only the dems had had 4 years to do something…
Any attempt by the Democrats to forestall this would have allowed Trump to paint them as anti-American traitors. So the Democrats did nothing and Trump painted them as anti-American traitors.
Hey now! He was convicted of all 34 indictments he was charged with!
And sure, those charges were delayed for years. And they were a fraction of the 91 indictments he could have been tried for. And they had to be brought in a municipal court, by a local DA, because nobody above Alvin Brag was willing to bring a case to trial.
And then the court never bothered to issue a sentence, because it would have been rude to punish a newly elected President.
But they did something!
Reformists try not to capitulate to fascists challenge REDUX(…again)
Kamala also supports sending cops against protesters, especially if they oppose Zionism:
Ahem, for those in the back and those with their heads in the sand: SHE STILL WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER THAN TRUMP!
“better than trump” evidently doesnt get people to the voting booths. Who knew? (everyone)
BETTER THAN TRUMP!
Talk about understatement…
Where did she say that?
we must not tolerate it (anti-zionism) in our nation
The context for this was a pro-palestine protest in washington dc, with kamala supporting the police action to break it up.
Kamala DID lie. They didn’t send the Army. They sent the Marines.
Stupid smart Kamala.
