Moderators: LyricalRico, nate33, montestewart
So true.Zonkerbl wrote:AFM wrote:I don't like it either but it also affects my life in zero ways. I wont even remember it happened a week from now
gatdaym it confuses the hell out of me that AFM and TGW's handles are so similar
I mean, and they're not even that similar
Thanks for sharing this. I agree with a lot of the psychological and economic analysis but the prescription has no support like it was just tacked on at the end. This isn't complicated. Democrats showing competence in blue states and cities will go a long way. Simply being somewhat more moderate on social issues will go a long way. Repudiating some of their donor class in favor of those less economically fortunate would go a long way. Sadly I think all of that is unlikely so their top hope is the great possibility that Trump will be a disaster and be the alternative.Zonkerbl wrote:This is a really interesting, if long, summary of a lot of arguments I have been trying to make, except this article does a much better job than I ever did, about why the Dems should embrace the radical left and find the courage to risk losing non existent Democrat "moderates" to make a case about why the status quo is broken and needs to change. That is the only path left forward for them, and if they follow it they will lose about as badly as they lost to Trump at the national level, so why bother, but there it is.
I will also say that the Dems were justifiably worried about losing moderates because Fox News has brainwashed the entire nation into shifting wildly to the right. But the answer is not to surrender to Fox News but to create an alternate to Fox News, more than just MSNBC, but to make actual, measurable changes to tangibly reduce expenditures on the military in favor of expenditures on the UBI that we experimented with during COVID, to stop sending US military assets to support the genocide of Palestinians, and to full throatedly support the defund the police movement and all the associated changes in accountability for the rich that that would entail.
Yes it's too late and why bother. It doesn't matter anymore and democracy is lost. I don't even know why I'm posting this. But for what it's worth:
https://eladnehorai.substack.com/p/the-deeper-reasons-democrats-lost?r=1443i&utm_medium=ios&triedRedirect=true
Benjammin wrote:Thanks for sharing this. I agree with a lot of the psychological and economic analysis but the prescription has no support like it was just tacked on at the end. This isn't complicated. Democrats showing competence in blue states and cities will go a long way. Simply being somewhat more moderate on social issues will go a long way. Repudiating some of their donor class in favor of those less economically fortunate would go a long way. Sadly I think all of that is unlikely so their top hope is the great possibility that Trump will be a disaster and be the alternative.Zonkerbl wrote:This is a really interesting, if long, summary of a lot of arguments I have been trying to make, except this article does a much better job than I ever did, about why the Dems should embrace the radical left and find the courage to risk losing non existent Democrat "moderates" to make a case about why the status quo is broken and needs to change. That is the only path left forward for them, and if they follow it they will lose about as badly as they lost to Trump at the national level, so why bother, but there it is.
I will also say that the Dems were justifiably worried about losing moderates because Fox News has brainwashed the entire nation into shifting wildly to the right. But the answer is not to surrender to Fox News but to create an alternate to Fox News, more than just MSNBC, but to make actual, measurable changes to tangibly reduce expenditures on the military in favor of expenditures on the UBI that we experimented with during COVID, to stop sending US military assets to support the genocide of Palestinians, and to full throatedly support the defund the police movement and all the associated changes in accountability for the rich that that would entail.
Yes it's too late and why bother. It doesn't matter anymore and democracy is lost. I don't even know why I'm posting this. But for what it's worth:
https://eladnehorai.substack.com/p/the-deeper-reasons-democrats-lost?r=1443i&utm_medium=ios&triedRedirect=true
Sent from my Pixel 9 Pro XL using Tapatalk
Zonkerbl wrote:TGW wrote:pancakes3 wrote:the idea that there are people out here talking about the lost of public trust in the office, the precedent this would set, that it opens the door for "the next guy" to abuse, all over the exercise of a pardon power, when we're not even 12 months removed from Trump, who wasn't even in office at the time, got the Court system to rule on Presidential immunity and kill multiple ongoing felony indictments?
like what are we even talking about?
So you liberals are fine with continuing the banana republic-esque precedent set by Trump because it's your side doing it? Got it.
The liberals never cease to amaze me with their hypocrisy. It just amazes me the mental gymnastics from the left when they are caught defending the same **** they accuse Trump of doing. Unbelievable. Thank goodness there are several Dems with a little bit of integrity that are calling this out, because this is the definition of abuse of power.
That doesn't make any sense. The argument is whether Biden is the one setting the precedent, not whether we approve of Biden doing it. It's 100% fact that Trump set the precedent already. It's weird and insane to argue that Biden is setting some sort of precedent by doing it now.
Should he be doing it? That's a separate argument. And goalpost shifting.
If anything, the discourse should be about what a terrible precedent that Trump set, that Biden feels comfortable doing this.
Some random troll wrote:Not to sound negative, but this team is owned by an arrogant cheapskate, managed by a moron and coached by an idiot. Recipe for disaster.
Zonkerbl wrote:AFM wrote:I don't like it either but it also affects my life in zero ways. I wont even remember it happened a week from now
gatdaym it confuses the hell out of me that AFM and TGW's handles are so similar
I mean, and they're not even that similar
Wizardspride wrote:AFM wrote:Are you talking to me? No I don't. Pretty sure I posted a video here a few pages back showing how much he's changed in just a few years.
There's CA Joe and TX Joe, two wildly different people
I missed your video and yeah, he's just gone down the MAGA rabbit hole.
Honestly, I think his "ideology" is based in large part on who he's spending the most time with at any particular moment.
TGW wrote:pancakes3 wrote:the idea that there are people out here talking about the lost of public trust in the office, the precedent this would set, that it opens the door for "the next guy" to abuse, all over the exercise of a pardon power, when we're not even 12 months removed from Trump, who wasn't even in office at the time, got the Court system to rule on Presidential immunity and kill multiple ongoing felony indictments?
like what are we even talking about?
So you liberals are fine with continuing the banana republic-esque precedent set by Trump because it's your side doing it? Got it.
The liberals never cease to amaze me with their hypocrisy. It just amazes me the mental gymnastics from the left when they are caught defending the same **** they accuse Trump of doing. Unbelievable. Thank goodness there are several Dems with a little bit of integrity that are calling this out, because this is the definition of abuse of power.
closg00 wrote:Ohio is gerrymandered the hell out, Pubs squeezed another 4-6 seats there too, they would not be in control without gerrymandering
TGW wrote:Zonkerbl wrote:TGW wrote:
So you liberals are fine with continuing the banana republic-esque precedent set by Trump because it's your side doing it? Got it.
The liberals never cease to amaze me with their hypocrisy. It just amazes me the mental gymnastics from the left when they are caught defending the same **** they accuse Trump of doing. Unbelievable. Thank goodness there are several Dems with a little bit of integrity that are calling this out, because this is the definition of abuse of power.
That doesn't make any sense. The argument is whether Biden is the one setting the precedent, not whether we approve of Biden doing it. It's 100% fact that Trump set the precedent already. It's weird and insane to argue that Biden is setting some sort of precedent by doing it now.
Should he be doing it? That's a separate argument. And goalpost shifting.
If anything, the discourse should be about what a terrible precedent that Trump set, that Biden feels comfortable doing this.
Sir, I'm not going to try to explain this to you. Anyone with half a brain who isn't a pompom waiving partisan hack knows what I'm saying.
dobrojim wrote:closg00 wrote:Ohio is gerrymandered the hell out, Pubs squeezed another 4-6 seats there too, they would not be in control without gerrymandering
It all goes back to SCOTUS and their philosophy that gerrymandering is a fine tradition
that needs to be upheld.
Zonkerbl wrote:dobrojim wrote:closg00 wrote:Ohio is gerrymandered the hell out, Pubs squeezed another 4-6 seats there too, they would not be in control without gerrymandering
It all goes back to SCOTUS and their philosophy that gerrymandering is a fine tradition
that needs to be upheld.
Well, this actually went to the Ohio SCOTUS (because there was an anti gerrymandering constitutional amendment on the ballet in November) and their decision was "saying that gerrymandering is the opposite of gerrymandering is fine and permissible. Lying to people about what this amendment means is fine if you're a Republican"
closg00 wrote:Zonkerbl wrote:dobrojim wrote:
It all goes back to SCOTUS and their philosophy that gerrymandering is a fine tradition
that needs to be upheld.
Well, this actually went to the Ohio SCOTUS (because there was an anti gerrymandering constitutional amendment on the ballet in November) and their decision was "saying that gerrymandering is the opposite of gerrymandering is fine and permissible. Lying to people about what this amendment means is fine if you're a Republican"
Disgusting
closg00 wrote:I understand that Trump took comfort in nominating fellow sexual deviants, but has this guy crossed the acceptable threshold for even deplorables?
