claim 1: “voting doesn’t change anything”
Never forget the recent case of Kris Mayes, who refuses to uphold the Arizona supreme court’s sweeping ban of abortion.
Kris Mayes only won her 2022 election by 280 votes. Voting changes things.
claim 2: “but genocide joe”
Yep. Hold that fucker’s feet to the fire. He has blood on his hands
But trump has promised to be indisputably worse. I won’t tell you how to vote. I just encourage you to vote. You’re not radical for ditching the only miniscule right the state has granted you to do some small aid for your neighbors.
And they decided to spend their money on ad buys for maga candidates and to pull the rug out from under progressives. Which is why the party can get all the way fucked when it asks for my money. They'll just waste it on maga chuds.
Their funding of the opposition indicates that.
Yeah, she makes a great object lesson for what happens when you run and aren't MAGA-adjacent enough for the party's liking.
Wonder if that has anything to do with progressives not being able to count on support of the Democratic Party.
Their judgement is sound; they just prefer maga candidates to progressives.
There's no proof of that. That is a hyperbolic and absurd claim. Have they strategically propped up and pushed for bad Republican candidates before? Yes. Not because they support them. But because they are generally so weak they think it's some sort of viable strategy to defeat Republicans. It's backfired soundly on them and they haven't learned. Claiming that they actually "support" them is absurd however. You're literally claiming that they wanted Trump to win in 2016 over hillary. Because they prompt him up early on. When clearly that isn't the case.
No. It's another bad Democrat strategy where they focus almost solely on the national level. And largely ignore state offices and legislatures. Its been that way at least 20 years. If you're old enough to remember.
No. It's still an absurd, hyperbolic, and unsupported claim. I'm not arguing that the Democrat leadership hasn't behaved stupidly. There's more evidence that they have than of most other things in life. But they're not trying to get the magats in office. They've always intended to beat them. But the morons legitimately don't know how to do that reliably.
We're looking at the same set of events. You're calling it incompetence. I'm calling it malice. If it were just incompetence, you'd think at least once the party would bumble into looking like they had their thumbs on the scale for progressives.
They have multiple times. Whether it's the chips act, the NLRB decision or some of the more recent ones. Some of the stuff in this list is pretty specious but it's a pretty decent list. And it's not as long as it should be. But it's definitely not nothing.
Democrats are absolutely incompetent. There's no question. But if you think they're actively pushing to get magats elected. You make the people thinking there was a child sex dungeon in the basement of a pizza parlor with no basement seem slightly more sane.
Oh cool. The list that counts changing the color scheme on a plane as an accomplishment.
They're paying for their ads and starving progressives of funds.
I literally told you that some of them weren't really valid. And that's your best reply. The Chips act, NLRB decision, the debt relief, and recent FTC decisions. They're HUGE. And the fact you can't engage and act maturely like an adult. Just shows how disingenuous you're being.
And? Lay out the conspiracy gymnastics to go from that to literally supporting Republican candidates with intent of getting them elected. Is this being orchestrated by the Bilderbergs, the lizard people, maybe the greys? Never attribute to malice that which can adequately be explained with incompetence. Though in your case it may be both.
You want me to prove intent?
I do not believe that this can be adequately explained by incompetence. Democrats' "incompetence" only benefits candidates to the right of progressives.
That's a consequence of a century of encroaching fascism and heavy right-wing framing. From the 1950s Red Scare all the way through today. Including Reagan's terrorist assaults. It's easily explained by Propaganda and incompetence.
You're young passionate and uninformed. I'm not going to hold that against you. Because that's how we all tend to start out. And the first two are solid assets. However a failure to engage with the facts. An employee reasoning and understanding to learn. Could be something that people will hold against you in the future.
Take it from someone who's old enough to remember when drills telling you to hide under your desk to Shield you from an atomic blast were commonplace. Ignorance, incompetence and propaganda ran rampant. And you aren't immune.
So I guessed right when I guessed boomer. As though the condescension wasn't a dead giveaway.
Wrong as always. And I gave you more complements ironically than criticism or condescension. But you gotta be you. And you gotta be the victim just like the Magats. GL with that.
You support the party because it opposes progressives.