They already have started doing that

Please read my previous comment again because the response to this statement is exactly the same.

They said the same thing about black people until a black man running as a progressive won the nomination. I think you’ve been learning the wrong lesson from all the elections since.

I cringe every time someone describes Trump as charismatic. I know what you mean and I don’t disagree with the sentiment, but the fact that there are people in this world who find his demeanor appealing will never be anything but horrific to me.

Absolutely, and to be clear, this does not imply that Trump has a good solution to this problem. He’ll probably make it significantly worse. But at least he’s talking about it in a way that resonates with people. Don’t tell me my problem is that I don’t understand my own financial situation. Show me how you plan to improve it in ways that I actually care about.

This is not a messaging problem it’s a measurement problem. The metrics we use to gauge economic progress and/or health are not effective indicators of anyone’s experience but the wealthy. When Dems tell me wages have gone up so income inequality is getting better what they mean is that new jobs are on average offering slightly higher pay to new hires.

They don’t say that slightly higher pay is 5 cents an hour which is practically useless. They don’t acknowledge that this tiny wage increase is dwarfed by the impacts of inflation over the last 4 years. Worst of all, they don’t say that because this wage increase only applies to new hires, anyone working the same job for more than a couple of years hasn’t seen a wage increase at all, but that price gouging has definitely impacted them. That last one is important because it applies to a huge chunk of people.

This is just the way it works out with wages but basically everything these pundits are saying is great under Biden could be described the same way. They’re talking about averages which when applied to 330 million people produce numbers that sound significant, but when you look at almost any individual it doesn’t make a practical difference in their lives. Sure, you may have slowed the rate at which things are getting worse, but are you honestly surprised at this reaction? You’re telling people you solved their problems and they’re responding “no, you absolutely did not and fuck you for saying that”

Dems need some bashing and Bernie is the official spokesman of disaffected Dem voters so he is perfect for the job.

Saying that the whole state will definitely be underwater is a significantly stronger statement than “the risk of flooding is increasing”. Still, people move somewhere else every day for reasons a lot more trivial than either.

I believe she would have been marginally better than Biden but, as you continuously refuse to acknowledge because it completely defeats the point you are trying to make, that is not what we’re discussing here. Trump is indisputably going to be worse than either of them and that’s what you have chosen to support through inaction. You can talk in circles around that fact as much as you like but it won’t change reality.

If you fully expect to lose everything you have at some point then why would you wait until that happens to act? You won’t have a choice at that point so do something now and save what you can.

Even if you disagree with that characterization you can’t dispute the fact that you’ve at least helped shut the door on the potential for improvement.

I thought they only applied to sales.

What do you suppose these companies might want to do with their products once they transport them to this other branch location?

And yet accelerated genocide is the option that was chosen.

Look, I get the argument you’re making. The problem is that it hinges entirely on accepting a premise that isn’t based in reality. Progress, specifically as it relates to harm reduction, doesn’t happen instantaneously. It never has. You take the wins you can get and then push for the next step. You can be mad about that, and I would argue that we all should be, but it’s not going to change the way things work. In this case you’ve let idealism get in the way of actual tangible improvement. Even if you disagree with that characterization you can’t dispute the fact that you’ve at least helped shut the door on the potential for improvement. If you can find a way to rationalize that in your head to make you feel like the good guy then I understand why you would want to take that path, but do you honestly believe the people of Gaza take solace in the fact that you had good intentions? I’d wager they don’t give a shit how you frame this in your mind. They’re just thinking about what a Trump presidency means for the future of this conflict and that isn’t good by any stretch of the imagination.

I think they mean that her running mate did some progressive stuff as governor. Or maybe we’re just so far right now that referring to LGBT as if they’re human beings counts as being progressive

This is what many said in 2016 after Clinton lost but we still did it again in 2020 and yet again in 2024. If I were a betting man I’d say that if there’s sill an election worth having in 2028 we’ll see another, even further right leaning, centrist Democrat win the nomination.

I find it odd when someone says Trump is this or Trump is that as if he’s consistent on anything. His absurd narcissism is the only consistent thing about him. You can bet your ass he would drag us into a war if it would stroke his ego in some way.

That is what makes him so uniquely dangerous. He has no ideology to speak of. His focus shifts back and forth so often that trying to predict exactly what he’s going to do is impossible. You can say with certainty that he won’t be motivated by any sort of desire for the public good but that’s about as specific as you can get until he starts doing something.

You couldn’t make this buffoonery up!

Well somebody did

Biden’s mandate was to protect Democracy, not increase infrastructure spending. Yes that’s a good addition to protecting democracy but the things you’re referring to were the expendable part of the job at hand. We got the sides at the expense of the main course. And what reason was that for again? Oh yeah, they didn’t want to seem like they were litigating political issues. Do you think that bought them some reciprocation from the incoming administration? Read the quotes from this potential AG again if you’ve already forgotten the context in which we’re having this discussion.

Playing nice with fascists does not fucking work and yet that’s all we’ve done since they tried to overthrow the government. Now our inaction means they don’t even need to overthrow the government. They can just walk in the front door.

It turns out that trying to fix a problem is more memorable than causing said problem. Interesting, but not terribly surprising given the long running joke that American voters have very short attention spans

deleted by creator