I voted FOR the change in the re-felonization.Projection much? Leftist are the ones who've always called anyone who didn't tow their ever changing lines as RWNJs. Just like you have done in the 2 prior posts above.
Anyway, i guess this is your new framing. You as part of the "sane and rational" people seeking common sense compromise of course. And on the other side, the insane MAGA who only care about extremist rhetoric. How quaint.
Again this is a false frame. MAGA is not the reason why every State in the country shifted Right. Those are your fellow "sane and rational" folks who are not satisfied with the present reality.
MAGA is NOT the reason 10 blue Counties in your State of California turned red. It's not the reason the AG of your State got bounced by an independent. It's not the reason why the Mayor of your own City got bounced. It's not the reason why your State voted to re-felonize shoplifting.
You can continue fantasizing about Extremist RWNJs and their stupidity. But it won't change what's happening in your backyard. And everyday people with common sense will react as they see fit. Regardless of what fantasy Foggy and his high society friends are currently entertaining.
I'm sorry to butt in here, but I see parallels with the approach we had here in the UK, with regards to the Brexit vote/fall out.I voted FOR the change in the re-felonization.
You voted FOR a felon.
Do you see the difference?
You don’t.
There’s your problem.
But hey — the side you adopted out of Stockholm Syndrome and abject desperation to be accepted by someone is in control now.
We know exactly who to blame if it gets all fucked up.
What, exactly, is the argument for voting for a felon for US President . . . and then trusting what he has to say?I'm sorry to butt in here, but I see parallels with the approach we had here in the UK, with regards to the Brexit vote/fall out.
I voted Remain, and really could not believe what we had done, for even years after. I thought every "Brexiteer" was an absolute fuckwit. I truly hated what they had done. Wouldn't listen to anything they had to say. Still don't, to some extent.
Yet I now realise that calling them deluded fuckwits didn't/doesn't help.
They had an opinion that wasn't totally mine, but they had points that needed addressing.
Nobody has all the answers to everything, despite which side they take.
And sometimes you need to look at your own argument and be big enough to recognise why and how that fell down.
It certainly wasn't because Kamala was a black woman, or because Trump promised peanut butter or egg price reductions ;-)
What, exactly, is the argument for voting for a felon for US President . . . and then trusting what he has to say?
I guess it's that the problems seem so big we'll turn to anyone who claims they can fix them. Even Trump.
Ok then. He better.
Thing is -- if he doesn't, those who voted for him will never, ever, ever come here and say they were wrong. They'll just turn to the next -- probably worse -- person in line.
The biggest supporter here won't even say one word wrong about Matt Gaetz. Just ignores it. Pretends it never happened.
Who can trust them to make a good choice about anything?
I realiz(s)e you are trying to be rational.All I'm seeing, from thousands of miles away (and completely neutral) is that a felon beat your candidate.
Let that sink in....a felon (although I know you get that).
Why?
You can say that is because of "dumbing down" or whatever (and I'm not disagreeing) but the point remains that fighting dirtier won't address it. It remains with the Dems to get their shit together and actually "speak" to the electorate.
To give them something other than celeb endorsements, "aspirational" nice words and phrases and actually find their real voice again.
With a stronger candidate with a clean slate. Who addressed their issues.Awesome.
Who would have beat him?
How do you convince someone who would vote for a felon not to vote for him?
That’s a great post.I'm sorry to butt in here, but I see parallels with the approach we had here in the UK, with regards to the Brexit vote/fall out.
I voted Remain, and really could not believe what we had done, for even years after. I thought every "Brexiteer" was an absolute fuckwit. I truly hated what they had done. Wouldn't listen to anything they had to say. Still don't, to some extent.
Yet I now realise that calling them deluded fuckwits didn't/doesn't help.
They had an opinion that wasn't totally mine, but they had points that needed addressing.
Nobody has all the answers to everything, despite which side they take.
And sometimes you need to look at your own argument and be big enough to recognise why and how that fell down.
It certainly wasn't because Kamala was a black woman, or because Trump promised peanut butter or egg price reductions ;-)
Awesome again.With a stronger candidate with a clean slate. Who addressed their issues.
It's not rocket science.
Awesome again.
WHO SPECIFICALLY?
It's not rocket science when you don't put up a name or names.
I realiz(s)e you are trying to be rational.
Let me give you an example from my own life.
25 years ago I ran a business selling big ticket retail items that typically required financing. My competitor next door selling similar product was actually falsifying W2s to get their customers financed. Moreover the same banks who turned down customers I sent approved the loans from our competitor KNOWING the W2s were forged because they'd already seen and turned down the customers based on their real W2s. It should be no surprise that Deutsche Bank was one of them but not the only one.
So I quit. I closed our store, and walked away.
Thank god, because a year or so later, the whole industry blew up, product shipments fell 80%, have ever recovered and many of the banks involved were sued, disappeared, got out of the business, etc. Sales are today about 30% of what they were at the peak.
At the time, customers just wanted the product. Breaking the law didn't matter to them. My competitor just wanted the sale. Breaking the law didn't matter to him.
But what should I have done? Come up with a better way to "speak" to my customers, eh?
Hopefully this example is illustrative.
1. Sigh. Yet again, another proselytizer who can't answer this fundamental question.Anyone other than Harris or Biden.
I bet any decent Dem would have had a better chance.
You are going to tell me it was all about the money, aren't you. That prohibited a decent alternative. Bloody sad state of affairs if so...the greatest "democracy" in the world dictated to by the amount a party/nominee has? And how much that money influences who can run?
Quite shocking really.
Anyway, I'll leave you to it. To what I posted originally; don't ignore or belittle what the opposition has to say. Sometimes there is some truth in it.
Yeah, it was. But you didn't answer the question. What was my alternative?That's pretty awful to be fair.
You are forgetting the media's part in all this. Gavin Newsome was a viable option at one point, but MSM turned their noses up at him because he 'had baggage'. Candidates need momentum to generate campaign funds and without positive media coverage, they're dead in the water.Anyone other than Harris or Biden.
I bet any decent Dem would have had a better chance.
You are going to tell me it was all about the money, aren't you. That prohibited a decent alternative. Bloody sad state of affairs if so...the greatest "democracy" in the world dictated to by the amount a party/nominee has? And how much that money influences who can run?
Quite shocking really.
Anyway, I'll leave you to it. To what I posted originally; don't ignore or belittle what the opposition has to say. Sometimes there is some truth in it.
I'VE already turned my nose up at Newsom. He'd have gotten TORCHED by Trump.You are forgetting the media's part in all this. Gavin Newsome was a viable option at one point, but MSM turned their noses up at him because he 'had baggage'. Candidates need momentum to generate campaign funds and without positive media coverage, they're dead in the water.
Given the orchestrated media campaign against Biden with such a short time to go Harris was the ONLY viable option. The problem was, she was playing to a different set of media standards to the guy who won. I wasn't a level playing field, and that would have been the case whoever the Dem's nominated.
I think given a longer run up and some momentum in the media, he might have been in with a shout, but I admit it would have been a stretch. The Biden situation aside, there really was nobody else bar perhaps Pete Buttigieg, but given that a lot of people turned their noses up at a black woman I'd hate to think how an openly gay man would fair.I'VE already turned my nose up at Newsom. He'd have gotten TORCHED by Trump.
Newsom just bought a 9M house near SF; he’d have been portrayed as a spoiled rich kid and MAGA would have believed it while Trump wasn’t of course. Buttigieg would have been rejected on the “being gay is a step away from being trans” platform and gotten smashed.I think given a longer run up and some momentum in the media, he might have been in with a shout, but I admit it would have been a stretch. The Biden situation aside, there really was nobody else bar perhaps Pete Buttigieg, but given that a lot of people turned their noses up at a black woman I'd hate to think how an openly gay man would fair.
Tbh mate, out of several hundred million people to choose from it's sort of up to the democrats to make better choices rather than a poster on here. If you still think Harris was a good choice we have a bridge and some magic beans you can buy.Awesome again.
WHO SPECIFICALLY?
It's not rocket science when you don't put up a name or names.
No, I just expect people who claim to know what the problem is to offer solutions.Tbh mate, out of several hundred million people to choose from it's sort of up to the democrats to make better choices rather than a poster on here. If you still think Harris was a good choice we have a bridge and some magic beans you can buy.
Harris wasn't terrible, she was ok. I think you've sorted of answered your own question, it's out trump trump or actually come up with someone who can articulate a clear vision rather than just repeat clichés. Starmer was similar here with his muddled policy u turns and constant bollocks about his dad being a toolmaker. Fortunately for him the previous govt were so poor we voted for him just to get rid of them. Harris didn't have that advantage because she was the government.No, I just expect people who claim to know what the problem is to offer solutions.
Otherwise their claims of knowing what the problem is are specious.
Every time I ask questions like “Who should Democrats have picked?” or “What policies could Democrats espouse that MAGA would like?” or “Why do those who voted for Trump forgive his law-breaking, past, character, or mistakes as actual President?” etc etc etc, I get non-responses.
My conclusion is if you’re going to vote for Trump, there’s no one you won’t vote for against him. In 2016, when he was loosely more of an unknown, I could see it. Not after his administration, Jan 6 and then his conviction, among many many things.
“That’s how bad Harris was” is a shitbag answer if you can’t offer up a solution. And you can’t not because you’re stupid — you can’t because there isn’t one.
Democrats will have to out-Trump Trump if they want to win — whatever that means.
This was the one-shot to save democracy. If you've properly digested and understood Project 2025 you'd know that the few of us on her shouting '5-Alarm Fire' were not joking. Democracy as we know it in the USA is fucked for generations, and the knock on effect will have dire consequences globally.Tbh mate, out of several hundred million people to choose from it's sort of up to the democrats to make better choices rather than a poster on here. If you still think Harris was a good choice we have a bridge and some magic beans you can buy.