|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On June 04 2025 06:33 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I think this is where Razyda gets it wrong - and honestly, it's an understandable mistake. The primary difference between left-wing and right-wing ideology is not, as is somewhat commonly believed, and which will in most cases be a fair method of differentiating, attitudes towards capitalism, individual freedom, or the state - but about hierarchies. Leftism at its core is about combating hierarchical structures. The opposition to capitalism isn't based on its ability to incentivize production of lots of goods. Even in the case of the autoritarian left (stalinism), the power structure is (theoretically) aimed at providing more equality for the population at large. The goal of communism is a class-less society. Fascism and nazism in some ways sought the upheaval of existing hierarchies - but most certainly not with the goal of abolishing them entirely; hierarchical structures are an inherent, desired element of fascism/nazism.
It's simply that "the right" is a nebulous concept, very poorly defined.
If it were just about hierarchies then the countries with caste systems would be considered the most right wing in planet but they are not, its always the Nazis because they wanted racial supremacy but also to eradicate economical classes like the soviets.
Why is Franco, Pinochet or even Mussolini considered also the most extreme right wing figures in history yet they never talked about hierarchies or put in place any system like that? but Mao constructed the Hukou system which is basically the most brutal stratified hierarchy system besides slavery, so is Mao right wing then?.
Some people think right wing as hierarchies, others economical, or traditionalist values etc.
This phenomenon is very frustrating since it makes politics which is already a complex topic even more difficult to talk about and you see retarded ideas like saying libertarians are nazis when is almost the polar opposite ideology wise
The_political_compass_should_have_a_3rd_axis_change_my_mind.jpg
|
On June 04 2025 08:59 Mohdoo wrote:
Yeah, its another example of republicans being experts in culture war at this point. They are the Sparta of culture war. They essentially normalize each other while also making each other look more reasonable in comparison. They each get to use each other as a "fall guy" to shed their baggage for some % of people.
This situation has made me realize why so many people thought TV wrestling was real.
I always find it funny when people assume hyper competence from obviously very flawed politicians.
Republicans think left wing ideologues infiltrated academia 40 years ago to infect young minds into the rise of socialist, and democrats think right wingers are brain washing young men with Joe Rogans and Andrew Tates but these things just happen organically.
They are not playing 4D Chess, they are playing checkers and badly, but out biased belief systems make us too invested and thus too blind to see how badly they are actually playing.
|
Northern Ireland24759 Posts
On June 04 2025 18:15 Jankisa wrote:
Musk can't be all of the following at the same time: genius, consistent, naive.
If he went all in on Trump and believed that he's going to bring the deficit down (despite him blowing it up in his first term) then he's either dumb or incredibly naive.
If he's consistent (despite changing his stances about an incredible amount of topics in the past 5 years) and naive then it's incredibly unlikely that he's an actual genius, everyone who paid attention to the last 50 years of Republican politics saw this imbecilic bill coming down.
In the end, he spent 300 million on electing a guy because, I guess, he thought that he wasn't serious about tariffs and because he prioritized fighting "the woke mind virus", so basically he's a moron who fell for the culture war bullshit and made some incredibly dumb moves.
My theory is that he's none of these things.
I think he got in, released his dogebags and gained access to incredibly sensitive and important systems, got as much data as he could out, fired people who were investigating his companies and once he got all that he bounced and started pretending like he was hoodwinked so he can rehabilitate his image.
So, he's not naive, he's not consistent and he's not a genius, he's an opportunistic piece of shit with way too much money and power.
He's also a troll, just like the other troll here who keeps bringing dumb arguments here and I honestly don't get why you guys engage with him, it seems incredibly exhausting to me.
As bang-on an assessment of Musk as one can hope to read.
He’s either a total moron who didn’t realise the main customer base for his most lucrative operation would not be exactly receptive to his recent shift in politics, or he wasn’t and ingratiating himself at the heart of Trump land would outweigh those negatives.
But then if you fall out with Trump seemingly, you’re going 0/2. Which isn’t very smart. Maybe you didn’t anticipate Trump doing Trump things, or thought you could be the sole person (outside of Putin in some areas) who could rein him in. If the former, again not very smart to seemingly not be aware of what much of the rest of the world knew years ago. If the latter well that’s arrogance and hubris for you.
Why people find this man impressive, or admirable in today’s climate is beyond me. Even if you hold him in high regard for past achievements, people and circumstances change. It’s been a clown show for a couple of years at least
|
On June 04 2025 18:15 Jankisa wrote:
Musk can't be all of the following at the same time: genius, consistent, naive.
If he went all in on Trump and believed that he's going to bring the deficit down (despite him blowing it up in his first term) then he's either dumb or incredibly naive.
If he's consistent (despite changing his stances about an incredible amount of topics in the past 5 years) and naive then it's incredibly unlikely that he's an actual genius, everyone who paid attention to the last 50 years of Republican politics saw this imbecilic bill coming down.
In the end, he spent 300 million on electing a guy because, I guess, he thought that he wasn't serious about tariffs and because he prioritized fighting "the woke mind virus", so basically he's a moron who fell for the culture war bullshit and made some incredibly dumb moves.
My theory is that he's none of these things.
I think he got in, released his dogebags and gained access to incredibly sensitive and important systems, got as much data as he could out, fired people who were investigating his companies and once he got all that he bounced and started pretending like he was hoodwinked so he can rehabilitate his image.
So, he's not naive, he's not consistent and he's not a genius, he's an opportunistic piece of shit with way too much money and power.
He's also a troll, just like the other troll here who keeps bringing dumb arguments here and I honestly don't get why you guys engage with him, it seems incredibly exhausting to me.
Agree overall, the one thing I will add is that I don't think Musk necessarily bounced to fix his image. But also that he probably clashed with Trump, those 2 both have to big ego's. They can't work together for all before they inevitably clash for a disagreement or who is getting credit.
I don't believe he actually gives a shit about the deficit, he used it as an excuse to slash regulation/investigation and now he is using it as an excuse to attack Trump over some percieved slight.
|
On June 04 2025 20:23 WombaT wrote:
Why people find this man impressive, or admirable in today’s climate is beyond me. Even if you hold him in high regard for past achievements, people and circumstances change. It’s been a clown show for a couple of years at least He is hurting the right people (and the wrong ones when they themselves inevitably get caught in the crossfire)
|
On June 04 2025 20:23 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2025 18:15 Jankisa wrote:
Musk can't be all of the following at the same time: genius, consistent, naive.
If he went all in on Trump and believed that he's going to bring the deficit down (despite him blowing it up in his first term) then he's either dumb or incredibly naive.
If he's consistent (despite changing his stances about an incredible amount of topics in the past 5 years) and naive then it's incredibly unlikely that he's an actual genius, everyone who paid attention to the last 50 years of Republican politics saw this imbecilic bill coming down.
In the end, he spent 300 million on electing a guy because, I guess, he thought that he wasn't serious about tariffs and because he prioritized fighting "the woke mind virus", so basically he's a moron who fell for the culture war bullshit and made some incredibly dumb moves.
My theory is that he's none of these things.
I think he got in, released his dogebags and gained access to incredibly sensitive and important systems, got as much data as he could out, fired people who were investigating his companies and once he got all that he bounced and started pretending like he was hoodwinked so he can rehabilitate his image.
So, he's not naive, he's not consistent and he's not a genius, he's an opportunistic piece of shit with way too much money and power.
He's also a troll, just like the other troll here who keeps bringing dumb arguments here and I honestly don't get why you guys engage with him, it seems incredibly exhausting to me.
As bang-on an assessment of Musk as one can hope to read. He’s either a total moron who didn’t realise the main customer base for his most lucrative operation would not be exactly receptive to his recent shift in politics, or he wasn’t and ingratiating himself at the heart of Trump land would outweigh those negatives. But then if you fall out with Trump seemingly, you’re going 0/2. Which isn’t very smart. Maybe you didn’t anticipate Trump doing Trump things, or thought you could be the sole person (outside of Putin in some areas) who could rein him in. If the former, again not very smart to seemingly not be aware of what much of the rest of the world knew years ago. If the latter well that’s arrogance and hubris for you. Why people find this man impressive, or admirable in today’s climate is beyond me. Even if you hold him in high regard for past achievements, people and circumstances change. It’s been a clown show for a couple of years at least
I think it started around the time he attacked the cave diver guy and called him a pedo, he didn't like the pushback and started radicalizing. That kind of also coincides with him letting go of his executive assistant who was also his primary PR person for a decade or so because she asked for a months vacation.
Then, like with a lot of middle aged men, COVID broke his brain, I know way too many of them that went down the conspiracy and into the right wing pipeline, both in real life and online. I remember him posting wildly wrong interpretation of the plot of Deus Ex and it was all downhill from there.
He posted 0 new cases by April and got shat on, from there it was a vicious cycle, he'd get criticized for his stupid shit and since the people who kept criticizing him were left aligned they became the enemy.
The same thing happened with Joe Rogan, but his transformation began when he did a take about a trans MMA fighter, which I agreed a the time and from there he started hosting (and basically launched his career) Jordan Peterson and a bunch of other weirdoes. It all culminated with Musk on Rogan and the rest is history.
|
On June 04 2025 17:06 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2025 10:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 04 2025 06:33 Liquid`Drone wrote:On June 03 2025 23:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 03 2025 23:15 Razyda wrote:On June 03 2025 21:31 WombaT wrote:On June 03 2025 20:09 Razyda wrote:On June 03 2025 19:59 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 03 2025 19:57 Razyda wrote:On June 03 2025 19:50 Jockmcplop wrote:
[quote]
This isn't true.
The context is, the week after his NAZI SALUTE, ELon Musk posted 14 American flags at 14:!4 ina blatantly obvious reference to Hitler's 14 words, so revered by Nazis the world over.
That is the context, and it provides background which allows you to easily see that this is the kind of guy who would do a Nazi salute, which he definitely did.
You can ignore that context and keep pretending it doesn't exist if you like, but it makes your argument look incredibly weak and petty.
Remind me please (I may be wrong), but did Musk condemnation here started right after he performed nazi salute, or only week after, when he did 14 flags staff? I dunno, probably straight away. In this discussion right now though, the context is there, so if that condemnation began right away, Musk went on to prove those people right, and arguing now that it wasn't a Nazi Salute is arguing something that has already been proven wrong. Yeah, but if the condemnation of Musk started right away and Booker not, then that is double standard. On June 03 2025 19:36 KwarK wrote:
Leftists can't be Nazis. Yes they can. There are two general layers of context here, and in general. The first difference is the first layer of context here. What happened in the footage, and does it accurately represent the event itself? For example, if I said ‘I don’t use the word nigger, I think it’s a profoundly ugly word’, and someone who was filming me, stuck it online, and only showed the bolded section, that would be taking me out of context by selectively reversing the sentiment of what I said. The second layer is, if the thing happened, why? What are the various other factors that explain what was going on. These may 100% end up open to interpretation anyway, or disagreement, they may not. For example a footballer in the UK was getting a lot of shit for having a tattoo of a gun, and for glorifying gang violence etc. The reality was they got that tattoo in memory of a family member (possibly father) who was killed by gun violence. So, circling back to this, and hypocrisy, or otherwise. 1. Via the first conception of context, Musk did the K-Pop salute, Booker did not. You can watch a long cut of Musk, he does the K-Pop salute. Booker does not, it only looks that way if you cut the footage early. 2. It doesn’t matter what Booker’s reasons are for doing a K-Pop salute, if he didn’t do it in the first place. With Musk, people’s reads are different from him just trolling, to him being a full-on Nazi, and various spots in between there. "if you cut the footage early." I've seen rest of it. About half step of the podium his rather rapid turn. kind of makes me think, this was the moment he knew. On June 03 2025 21:15 Billyboy wrote:On June 03 2025 20:09 Razyda wrote:On June 03 2025 19:59 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 03 2025 19:57 Razyda wrote:On June 03 2025 19:50 Jockmcplop wrote:
[quote]
This isn't true.
The context is, the week after his NAZI SALUTE, ELon Musk posted 14 American flags at 14:!4 ina blatantly obvious reference to Hitler's 14 words, so revered by Nazis the world over.
That is the context, and it provides background which allows you to easily see that this is the kind of guy who would do a Nazi salute, which he definitely did.
You can ignore that context and keep pretending it doesn't exist if you like, but it makes your argument look incredibly weak and petty.
Remind me please (I may be wrong), but did Musk condemnation here started right after he performed nazi salute, or only week after, when he did 14 flags staff? I dunno, probably straight away. In this discussion right now though, the context is there, so if that condemnation began right away, Musk went on to prove those people right, and arguing now that it wasn't a Nazi Salute is arguing something that has already been proven wrong. Yeah, but if the condemnation of Musk started right away and Booker not, then that is double standard. On June 03 2025 19:36 KwarK wrote:
Leftists can't be Nazis. Yes they can. Just take the L and call them Stalinists going forward, it is as bad and not automatically wrong. As per the Booker thing, it has exploded on facebook from the Musk lovers here. There is some similarities, which makes sense since that was Musks excuse. The big differences are that musk has his fingers tight (like the Nazi salute), he does it with more aggression (like the Nazi salute) and the the big one, that made his excuse so laughable, was that he turned and repeated it showing all that it was not an accident. "Just take the L and call them Stalinists going forward, it is as bad and not automatically wrong." Why would I do that? Have you seen 25 points of nsdap? It seems very much like socialism (admittedly race based rather, than class based) Here are the 25 Nazi points you're referencing: https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/nazi-party-platform Which ones "seem very much like socialism", and why? Are you talking about something like "9. All citizens shall have equal rights and duties"? Because I don't think that's what most people have issues with, when it comes to Nazis. I think a cause for concern would be something like "4. Only members of the nation may be citizens of the State. Only those of German blood, whatever their creed, may be members of the nation. Accordingly, no Jew may be a member of the nation." This isn't what socialists generally believe though. And there's also, like, the Holocaust. Eh, there are a fair amount of the ones that come after 11 that could belong to a socialist party's program. 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 20, 21 are like, yeah absolutely, 17 and 18 contextually. Totally agree, though as I said before, those aren't the problematic areas (and neither is having a moustache). I had posed that question to him to see if he would be capable of answering it (he was not capable of answering it). He found some innocuous overlaps, and then asserted that the terrible parts that are Nazi-specific ought to also be attributed to socialists too, and that Nazis = socialists. In fact, he's still doubling (tripling? quadrupling? quintupling?) down on that nonsense. I'm unsure as to why he's trying to follow in the footsteps of oBlade - implode and turn himself into a pariah. Sucks about my Stockton Rush level implosion, I wish I could keep it all together like the people who spend their free time on literal Qanon level analysis of the exact number of American flags a man who loves Israel posts on Twitter because it's super important to show that's a secret Nazi amount of flags, just like putting your fingers together vs. not putting your fingers together is the secret ingredient of a Sieg Heil. Except when a Nazi's fingers aren't together it's just because they forgot or are intentionally trying to muddy the waters somehow. Show nested quote +On June 04 2025 05:26 Billyboy wrote:Wow it sure did not take Musk long to burn his Trump bridge, I am shocked Trump did not fire first.
“I’m sorry, but I just can’t stand it anymore. This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination,” the tech billionaire posted on X. “Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it.”
He added in a subsequent post: “Congress is making America bankrupt.”
In another, he said: “In November next year, we fire all politicians who betrayed the American people.”
Either he was "in it" to "build a Trump bridge" and now contradicted himself spectacularly, or that base assumption is flatly wrong, he was always in it to cut waste and reduce spending and this is literally the most consistent possible action he could take if that's his opinion on the current bill. But that would require your assumption being wrong, which isn't possible.
He was in it to have control. He was in it to get the info from the data bases. He succeeded in half. Would he have spoken out if he was still in. Neither of us know. The question is more for a person like you, clearly Trump is about raising the deficit and debt to benefit himself and those in his inner circle. He clearly is not doing what he campaigned about, hell the Dems would have been better from a keeping spending down perspective. Are you OK with this because anti woke is your main issue and he is still fighting that stupid fight hard. Or have you changed your perspective on Trump.
|
On June 04 2025 19:05 baal wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2025 08:59 Mohdoo wrote:
Yeah, its another example of republicans being experts in culture war at this point. They are the Sparta of culture war. They essentially normalize each other while also making each other look more reasonable in comparison. They each get to use each other as a "fall guy" to shed their baggage for some % of people.
This situation has made me realize why so many people thought TV wrestling was real. I always find it funny when people assume hyper competence from obviously very flawed politicians. Republicans think left wing ideologues infiltrated academia 40 years ago to infect young minds into the rise of socialist, and democrats think right wingers are brain washing young men with Joe Rogans and Andrew Tates but these things just happen organically. They are not playing 4D Chess, they are playing checkers and badly, but out biased belief systems make us too invested and thus too blind to see how badly they are actually playing.
Yeah I don't think it's 4d chess, it's just checkers (thought this sounded familiar)
Wrestling is real. It's not a video game. Owen Hart actually died and getting hit actually hurts. They are however performers playing roles. Politicians are similar in that this is all a performance to them but real people are really getting hurt and dying as a consequence.
Musk, Rogan, and Trump/his successor are going to dominate the Overton Window and libs will try to find policy that lands somewhere between those three with Rogan (generally) being the "advocate" for human rights.
I don't even think they are doing this consciously, I think to them it really does feel like conflict. But more like friends trying to beat each other in a frivolous game than some sort of major clash.
|
I haven't seen any Musk, Trump, or Rogan talking points going mainstream among liberals. The only person attempting to do that is Gavin Newsom and his popularity has been crashing as a result.
|
On June 05 2025 01:26 LightSpectra wrote:
I haven't seen any Musk, Trump, or Rogan talking points going mainstream among liberals. The only person attempting to do that is Gavin Newsom and his popularity has been crashing as a result.
That sounds like he's got Democrat nominee written all over him then.
The "Abundance Agenda" is basically something Trump would have pitched in NY to advance his real estate empire though.
|
On June 05 2025 01:20 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2025 19:05 baal wrote:On June 04 2025 08:59 Mohdoo wrote:
Yeah, its another example of republicans being experts in culture war at this point. They are the Sparta of culture war. They essentially normalize each other while also making each other look more reasonable in comparison. They each get to use each other as a "fall guy" to shed their baggage for some % of people.
This situation has made me realize why so many people thought TV wrestling was real. I always find it funny when people assume hyper competence from obviously very flawed politicians. Republicans think left wing ideologues infiltrated academia 40 years ago to infect young minds into the rise of socialist, and democrats think right wingers are brain washing young men with Joe Rogans and Andrew Tates but these things just happen organically. They are not playing 4D Chess, they are playing checkers and badly, but out biased belief systems make us too invested and thus too blind to see how badly they are actually playing. Yeah I don't think it's 4d chess, it's just checkers ( thought this sounded familiar) Wrestling is real. It's not a video game. Owen Hart actually died and getting hit actually hurts. They are however performers playing roles. Politicians are similar in that this is all a performance to them but real people are really getting hurt and dying as a consequence. Musk, Rogan, and Trump/his successor are going to dominate the Overton Window and libs will try to find policy that lands somewhere between those three with Rogan (generally) being the "advocate" for human rights. I don't even think they are doing this consciously, I think to them it really does feel like conflict. But more like friends trying to beat each other in a frivolous game than some sort of major clash.
Wrassling is not real, Owen Hart died from falling from the roof on a stunt gone bad. Are Hollywood movies real because the stunts actually hurt. Chevy Chase is all messed up because of his physical comedy, that did not make his movies documentaries.
Wrestling is real, you can see it in the Olympics. WWE is not, it is scripted. WTF.
|
On June 05 2025 01:36 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2025 01:26 LightSpectra wrote:
I haven't seen any Musk, Trump, or Rogan talking points going mainstream among liberals. The only person attempting to do that is Gavin Newsom and his popularity has been crashing as a result. That sounds like he's got Democrat nominee written all over him then.
He'll crash and burn like Bloomberg's run lol.
|
On June 05 2025 01:56 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2025 01:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 05 2025 01:26 LightSpectra wrote:
I haven't seen any Musk, Trump, or Rogan talking points going mainstream among liberals. The only person attempting to do that is Gavin Newsom and his popularity has been crashing as a result. That sounds like he's got Democrat nominee written all over him then. Yeah, and it'll crash and burn like Bloomberg's run lol.
Bloomberg was on pace to beat Harris in California before she bailed out and then went on to became VP and Democrats Presidential candidate. Which is to say you can crash and burn upwards in the Democrat party.
Buttigieg is Democrat voters' favorite at the moment, but as Kwark has insisted, Democrats are really going to want to run a straight white man, preferably with at least a little gray hair, when it comes down to it.
Cuomo v Mamdani will be a big bellwether for the future of the party imo.
|
On June 05 2025 02:06 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2025 01:56 LightSpectra wrote:On June 05 2025 01:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 05 2025 01:26 LightSpectra wrote:
I haven't seen any Musk, Trump, or Rogan talking points going mainstream among liberals. The only person attempting to do that is Gavin Newsom and his popularity has been crashing as a result. That sounds like he's got Democrat nominee written all over him then. Yeah, and it'll crash and burn like Bloomberg's run lol. Bloomberg was on pace to beat Harris in California before she bailed out and then went on to became VP and Democrats Presidential candidate. Which is to say you can crash and burn upwards in the Democrat party.
Harris dropped out before the first state's primary. Bloomberg came 4th in California, losing to Sanders, Biden, and Warren by overwhelming margins. If that was intended to prove my point, then thank you.
|
On June 05 2025 02:14 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2025 02:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 05 2025 01:56 LightSpectra wrote:On June 05 2025 01:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 05 2025 01:26 LightSpectra wrote:
I haven't seen any Musk, Trump, or Rogan talking points going mainstream among liberals. The only person attempting to do that is Gavin Newsom and his popularity has been crashing as a result. That sounds like he's got Democrat nominee written all over him then. Yeah, and it'll crash and burn like Bloomberg's run lol. Bloomberg was on pace to beat Harris in California before she bailed out and then went on to became VP and Democrats Presidential candidate. Which is to say you can crash and burn upwards in the Democrat party. Harris dropped out before the first state's primary. Bloomberg came 4th in California, losing to Sanders, Biden, and Warren by overwhelming margins. If that was intended to prove my point, then thank you.
She dropped out because she was polling 4th, in single digits, in her home state.
She turned that into a VP job and being the presidential nominee for the party.
Anecdotally I've seen Newsome suffer for his leaning into right-wing talking points on transgender, homeless, and other oppressed people, but I haven't seen it in the data yet (I could have missed it).
|
|
|
On June 05 2025 02:44 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2025 02:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 05 2025 02:14 LightSpectra wrote:On June 05 2025 02:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 05 2025 01:56 LightSpectra wrote:On June 05 2025 01:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 05 2025 01:26 LightSpectra wrote:
I haven't seen any Musk, Trump, or Rogan talking points going mainstream among liberals. The only person attempting to do that is Gavin Newsom and his popularity has been crashing as a result. That sounds like he's got Democrat nominee written all over him then. Yeah, and it'll crash and burn like Bloomberg's run lol. Bloomberg was on pace to beat Harris in California before she bailed out and then went on to became VP and Democrats Presidential candidate. Which is to say you can crash and burn upwards in the Democrat party. Harris dropped out before the first state's primary. Bloomberg came 4th in California, losing to Sanders, Biden, and Warren by overwhelming margins. If that was intended to prove my point, then thank you. She dropped out because she was polling 4th, in single digits, in her home state. She turned that into a VP job and being the presidential nominee for the party. Anecdotally I've seen Newsome suffer for his leaning into right-wing talking points on transgender, homeless, and other oppressed people, but I haven't seen it in the data yet (I could have missed it). That says literally nothing about Harris' personal popularity. It was a FPTP race with two obvious front runners (Biden and Sanders) with two people already gunning to be seen as the compromise candidate (Warren and Buttigieg). Why don't you look at something more relevant, like who was the frontrunner in opinion polls for who people wanted Biden to pick for VP in 2020: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Democratic_Party_vice_presidential_candidate_selection#Opinion_polling
She failed upwards was the point.
|
She "failed upwards" by being the most popular pick out of 10-14 polled options? Are you listening to yourself?
Just a reminder that the people most susceptible to propaganda are those most sure they can't fall for it. Brainlessly following Trump calling her a "DEI pick" doesn't make you an intelligent contrarian.
|
On June 05 2025 02:59 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2025 02:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 05 2025 02:44 LightSpectra wrote:On June 05 2025 02:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 05 2025 02:14 LightSpectra wrote:On June 05 2025 02:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 05 2025 01:56 LightSpectra wrote:On June 05 2025 01:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 05 2025 01:26 LightSpectra wrote:
I haven't seen any Musk, Trump, or Rogan talking points going mainstream among liberals. The only person attempting to do that is Gavin Newsom and his popularity has been crashing as a result. That sounds like he's got Democrat nominee written all over him then. Yeah, and it'll crash and burn like Bloomberg's run lol. Bloomberg was on pace to beat Harris in California before she bailed out and then went on to became VP and Democrats Presidential candidate. Which is to say you can crash and burn upwards in the Democrat party. Harris dropped out before the first state's primary. Bloomberg came 4th in California, losing to Sanders, Biden, and Warren by overwhelming margins. If that was intended to prove my point, then thank you. She dropped out because she was polling 4th, in single digits, in her home state. She turned that into a VP job and being the presidential nominee for the party. Anecdotally I've seen Newsome suffer for his leaning into right-wing talking points on transgender, homeless, and other oppressed people, but I haven't seen it in the data yet (I could have missed it). That says literally nothing about Harris' personal popularity. It was a FPTP race with two obvious front runners (Biden and Sanders) with two people already gunning to be seen as the compromise candidate (Warren and Buttigieg). Why don't you look at something more relevant, like who was the frontrunner in opinion polls for who people wanted Biden to pick for VP in 2020: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Democratic_Party_vice_presidential_candidate_selection#Opinion_polling She failed upwards was the point. She "failed upwards" by being the most popular pick out of 10-14 polled options? Are you listening to yourself? Just a reminder that the people most susceptible to propaganda are those most sure they can't fall for it. Brainlessly following Trump calling her a "DEI pick" doesn't make you an intelligent contrarian.
I didn't say anything about "DEI pick" *sigh*
Yes, she failed upwards by being the most popular candidate despite failing her presidential run in 2020. She's also failing upwards by leading polls for Democrats 2028 despite failing her presidential runs (granted they were inordinately short) 2x now.
I think this discussion has run its course.
|
Out of curiosity, why were those polls for female VPs only? It's not surprising to me that Harris and Warren were the most popular out of the candidates listed (half of whom I've never heard of), but why weren't any male VP options available? There were surely plenty of popular male candidates too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
