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.
Not on this specific thing, I highly doubt it’s a straw that breaks even the camel with severe osteoporosis’ back, not in isolation.
As part of a continual pattern, yes it absolutely does have an impact. It’s uninspiring. It’s actively alienating if you are in one of the demographics Charlie Kirk shit on routinely to see those who are supposed to be in your camp gargling his balls.
Democrats are dumb politicians with the smarter electorate and Republicans are smart politicians with the dumb electorate.
Sucky position to be in, really relying a lot on the Democrats to be less moronic, but theyve shown such a low propensity for intelligent political calculus.
The sad part is Republicans aren’t even particularly smart politicians. It’s not like they’re outmanoeuvring folks with fiendish alacrity.
I mean, it’s effective, and yes there are some smart minds involved, but it’s only as effective as it is because the opposition is brainless.
If my go-to thing is just rushing some off-meta muta build to exploit some tendency, that’s pretty smart stuff, sure.
If I do nothing but my pocket muta build for literally like a decade and my opponents, who are all familiar with my style don’t build counters to it, or even units that shoot up, eventually it’s their idiocy that’s the problem, not how smart my build is.
Yeah, I may be overestimating Republicans by virtue of how dumb Democrats seem. Really easy to look like geniuses when youre being compared to the people who keep stepping forward into rakes like Sideshow Bob in that episode of The Simpsons.
I wish Democrats would acknowledge and accept that their voters arent as easy and braindead as the average Republican and actually work with that in mind instead of sitting around with their dicks in their hand bemoaning that the average Democrat voter actually has things they materially care about beyond the color blue.
I think it's difficult for democrats to craft a message because they're obviously a coalition with completely more diverse factions than Republicans, who are broadly split into free-market pro-business anti-financial regulation types and the Christian right. The rich and those who harbor fantasies of becoming rich, and those who don't mind being poor because they believe they're in for a windfall upon death, and who have a cultural distaste for queer people/cultural minorities. Democrats are made up of irreligious educated professionals, urban poor, racial minorities, and more. Republicans have a far easier time selling literally any narrative.
I think theyre far too invested in trying to find the perfect message frankly, I dont think you need a perfect message to drive turnout and enthusiasm (which are the primary things that win Democrats their elections) you need a message that you appear to care about and are enthusiastic about and you believe in.
The real difficulty is Democrats have spent so long not appearing to really care about anything (beyond their donors and decorum) or be enthusiastic about anything or believe in anything that they just dont have the trust of their electorate.
Part of the appeal of Bernie was that he absolutely and authentically believed what he was saying, he had a long history of saying it, everything about him said that his beliefs were real. Other Democrats dont have that, they're wafflers, waiting for their team of mediocre pollsters to assign them their believes as is (perceived to be) electorally convenient.
Swing voters dont mean anything anymore, people dont swap their votes between parties in any vaguely meaningful capacity, we have two camps, Democrats and Republicans, the focus should be in driving as much of your camp out as possible and doing shit like signing a resolution where you see how far down your throat Charlie Kirk's rotting nutsack will fit depresses your camp because the camp isnt the Republican camp.
Get a candidate that cares about something that the populace would benefit from, prove via action in their term that they are fighting like a starving predator to secure the thing they care about. Give people hope, give them something to strive for, something they can feel and appreciate (as an example the Stock Market is not this.)
Stop trying to find what the American people want to buy, theres a long well known fuckin' list, pick something and instead of fretting about whether they still want to buy it or not, focus on selling it to them.
Republicans wouldnt even know trans people existed beyond the occasional transphobic joke in their media if Republicans didnt convince them to give a shit. Republicans are like used car salesman in how they are always sell sell selling their bullshit.
I think its no coincidence that Republicans becoming very anti-trans (moreso than anything else they are anti) started around the time algorithms started being a thing in social media. Engagement weights the algorithm, so any time they would show some kind of trans person crashout or give a braindead extreme take (every group is guilty of having people who do this) it would draw outrage which made it top-performing content in terms of engagement. So more and more people started craving that sort of content while more and more people started trying to fill the demand for it. Notice how whenever they are holding up a trans person to their base, it's never someone who has any chance of passing, or is a criminal (yeah, every group has those too). Racial groups are too big to suffer from that level of misinformation, and even if most people are racist, they acknowledge the objects of their dislike didn't have any hand in being what they were, as opposed to being sold the notion that being trans is a choice and comorbid with all sorts of other shit. We're too far down the road to undo that level of misinformation, and the left, stupidly, has decided to keep mum on the issue, and fuel the fire by only ever talking about 'trans kids' rather than trans people. It played right the fuck into their hands.
I agree with you, but honestly, the left has had an ability to find the most ludicrous hills to die on that has been uncanny. Like, was it so hard to say “yeah, probably a trans female athlete shouldn’t boxe against someone born biologically female, can we know talk about the well-being of the majority of trans that are not olympic athletes”? No, we all had to go and get eviscerated on that tiny, tiny hill because we haven’t had the ball to tell the “wokes” or however one wants to call those white, well educated, “radical” college students to go fuck themeselves.
People did this, people are doing it now.
Many international bodies now bar trans people from elite (or even below that) sporting categories.
In the UK, most of our sporting regulators have done so, least for the big sports. Football, rugby, cricket, swimming, cycling are just some that spring to mind.
The trans panic hasn’t somehow evaporated, we’re still having the same bullshit arguments about bathrooms and whatnot
On September 20 2025 08:45 Razyda wrote: I think Shoe summarised pretty well how for sane people left looks like now:
Why on earth are we linking to a shoeonhead video to prove how bad the left is. I could link to a hasan video talking about how bad the right is and it would be just as useless as an argument. And if we really have to link clueless internet commentators, can we atleast summarize their points and why the vid was linked, instead of hoping people watch 24 minutes of drivel. Thank you!
It's against thread rules. The 'here is a 50min video explaining why you're wrong' approach gets old really fast.
Not on this specific thing, I highly doubt it’s a straw that breaks even the camel with severe osteoporosis’ back, not in isolation.
As part of a continual pattern, yes it absolutely does have an impact. It’s uninspiring. It’s actively alienating if you are in one of the demographics Charlie Kirk shit on routinely to see those who are supposed to be in your camp gargling his balls.
Democrats are dumb politicians with the smarter electorate and Republicans are smart politicians with the dumb electorate.
Sucky position to be in, really relying a lot on the Democrats to be less moronic, but theyve shown such a low propensity for intelligent political calculus.
The sad part is Republicans aren’t even particularly smart politicians. It’s not like they’re outmanoeuvring folks with fiendish alacrity.
I mean, it’s effective, and yes there are some smart minds involved, but it’s only as effective as it is because the opposition is brainless.
If my go-to thing is just rushing some off-meta muta build to exploit some tendency, that’s pretty smart stuff, sure.
If I do nothing but my pocket muta build for literally like a decade and my opponents, who are all familiar with my style don’t build counters to it, or even units that shoot up, eventually it’s their idiocy that’s the problem, not how smart my build is.
Yeah, I may be overestimating Republicans by virtue of how dumb Democrats seem. Really easy to look like geniuses when youre being compared to the people who keep stepping forward into rakes like Sideshow Bob in that episode of The Simpsons.
I wish Democrats would acknowledge and accept that their voters arent as easy and braindead as the average Republican and actually work with that in mind instead of sitting around with their dicks in their hand bemoaning that the average Democrat voter actually has things they materially care about beyond the color blue.
I think it's difficult for democrats to craft a message because they're obviously a coalition with completely more diverse factions than Republicans, who are broadly split into free-market pro-business anti-financial regulation types and the Christian right. The rich and those who harbor fantasies of becoming rich, and those who don't mind being poor because they believe they're in for a windfall upon death, and who have a cultural distaste for queer people/cultural minorities. Democrats are made up of irreligious educated professionals, urban poor, racial minorities, and more. Republicans have a far easier time selling literally any narrative.
I think theyre far too invested in trying to find the perfect message frankly, I dont think you need a perfect message to drive turnout and enthusiasm (which are the primary things that win Democrats their elections) you need a message that you appear to care about and are enthusiastic about and you believe in.
The real difficulty is Democrats have spent so long not appearing to really care about anything (beyond their donors and decorum) or be enthusiastic about anything or believe in anything that they just dont have the trust of their electorate.
Part of the appeal of Bernie was that he absolutely and authentically believed what he was saying, he had a long history of saying it, everything about him said that his beliefs were real. Other Democrats dont have that, they're wafflers, waiting for their team of mediocre pollsters to assign them their believes as is (perceived to be) electorally convenient.
Hypothetical: We're back in 2016. Hillary Clinton just became the Democratic nominee for the presidential election. Instead of choosing her runningmate to be Tim Kaine, she chooses Bernie Sanders. Does the Clinton/Sanders ticket beat the Trump/Pence ticket?
(I know that Sanders sincerely campaigned for Clinton after their primary was decided, but I wonder if the progressive/left wing would have been even more galvanized if Clinton had thrown them the giant bone of directly adding Sanders for vice president. Surely it's worth considering combining the two Democratic candidates who received the most votes in the primary.)
I'd like to think that a Clinton/Sanders ticket would have won. By extension, I wonder if creating the next Democratic P/VP ticket by simply combining the top two primary candidates is a decent default strategy, especially if one of them is more moderate and the other is more progressive.
Have you read GH posts? I think you get your answers no further than there.
Also, Clinton was centre / centre right, Bernie is firmly left. I think the Clinton camp felt it would lose its moderates to Trump by getting a VP that made the “Socialist Revolution” its campaign slogan (which was dumb af, even though i agree with 99% of his positions).
Then they decided to go full identity politics anyway rather than addressing inequalities and the struggles of the working class and the rest is history.
Bernie was Democrats last chance to save themselves. Not working their assses off to make Bernie president has been a catastrophic error on their part. I always feel like it wasn't enough, but I tried a lot harder than most to overcome their insistence on elevating Trump and beating down Bernie.
Bernie was/is more popular with the "moderates" that voted Trump than Clinton could ever hope to have been. On that note, it's worth watching him interacting with those voters instead of lib commentators describing them:
He's arguably still the best they got.
The actual "moderates" they were ostensibly worried about losing were the people that supported her in the primary and incessantly repeated the "vote blue no matter who" bullshit.
The same kind of Democrats (especially in NY) that still refuse to endorse their Democrat nominee for Mayor in NYC because they're too busy praising Charlie Kirk.
Not on this specific thing, I highly doubt it’s a straw that breaks even the camel with severe osteoporosis’ back, not in isolation.
As part of a continual pattern, yes it absolutely does have an impact. It’s uninspiring. It’s actively alienating if you are in one of the demographics Charlie Kirk shit on routinely to see those who are supposed to be in your camp gargling his balls.
Democrats are dumb politicians with the smarter electorate and Republicans are smart politicians with the dumb electorate.
Sucky position to be in, really relying a lot on the Democrats to be less moronic, but theyve shown such a low propensity for intelligent political calculus.
The sad part is Republicans aren’t even particularly smart politicians. It’s not like they’re outmanoeuvring folks with fiendish alacrity.
I mean, it’s effective, and yes there are some smart minds involved, but it’s only as effective as it is because the opposition is brainless.
If my go-to thing is just rushing some off-meta muta build to exploit some tendency, that’s pretty smart stuff, sure.
If I do nothing but my pocket muta build for literally like a decade and my opponents, who are all familiar with my style don’t build counters to it, or even units that shoot up, eventually it’s their idiocy that’s the problem, not how smart my build is.
Yeah, I may be overestimating Republicans by virtue of how dumb Democrats seem. Really easy to look like geniuses when youre being compared to the people who keep stepping forward into rakes like Sideshow Bob in that episode of The Simpsons.
I wish Democrats would acknowledge and accept that their voters arent as easy and braindead as the average Republican and actually work with that in mind instead of sitting around with their dicks in their hand bemoaning that the average Democrat voter actually has things they materially care about beyond the color blue.
I think it's difficult for democrats to craft a message because they're obviously a coalition with completely more diverse factions than Republicans, who are broadly split into free-market pro-business anti-financial regulation types and the Christian right. The rich and those who harbor fantasies of becoming rich, and those who don't mind being poor because they believe they're in for a windfall upon death, and who have a cultural distaste for queer people/cultural minorities. Democrats are made up of irreligious educated professionals, urban poor, racial minorities, and more. Republicans have a far easier time selling literally any narrative.
I think theyre far too invested in trying to find the perfect message frankly, I dont think you need a perfect message to drive turnout and enthusiasm (which are the primary things that win Democrats their elections) you need a message that you appear to care about and are enthusiastic about and you believe in.
The real difficulty is Democrats have spent so long not appearing to really care about anything (beyond their donors and decorum) or be enthusiastic about anything or believe in anything that they just dont have the trust of their electorate.
Part of the appeal of Bernie was that he absolutely and authentically believed what he was saying, he had a long history of saying it, everything about him said that his beliefs were real. Other Democrats dont have that, they're wafflers, waiting for their team of mediocre pollsters to assign them their believes as is (perceived to be) electorally convenient.
Swing voters dont mean anything anymore, people dont swap their votes between parties in any vaguely meaningful capacity, we have two camps, Democrats and Republicans, the focus should be in driving as much of your camp out as possible and doing shit like signing a resolution where you see how far down your throat Charlie Kirk's rotting nutsack will fit depresses your camp because the camp isnt the Republican camp.
Get a candidate that cares about something that the populace would benefit from, prove via action in their term that they are fighting like a starving predator to secure the thing they care about. Give people hope, give them something to strive for, something they can feel and appreciate (as an example the Stock Market is not this.)
Stop trying to find what the American people want to buy, theres a long well known fuckin' list, pick something and instead of fretting about whether they still want to buy it or not, focus on selling it to them.
Republicans wouldnt even know trans people existed beyond the occasional transphobic joke in their media if Republicans didnt convince them to give a shit. Republicans are like used car salesman in how they are always sell sell selling their bullshit.
I think its no coincidence that Republicans becoming very anti-trans (moreso than anything else they are anti) started around the time algorithms started being a thing in social media. Engagement weights the algorithm, so any time they would show some kind of trans person crashout or give a braindead extreme take (every group is guilty of having people who do this) it would draw outrage which made it top-performing content in terms of engagement. So more and more people started craving that sort of content while more and more people started trying to fill the demand for it. Notice how whenever they are holding up a trans person to their base, it's never someone who has any chance of passing, or is a criminal (yeah, every group has those too). Racial groups are too big to suffer from that level of misinformation, and even if most people are racist, they acknowledge the objects of their dislike didn't have any hand in being what they were, as opposed to being sold the notion that being trans is a choice and comorbid with all sorts of other shit. We're too far down the road to undo that level of misinformation, and the left, stupidly, has decided to keep mum on the issue, and fuel the fire by only ever talking about 'trans kids' rather than trans people. It played right the fuck into their hands.
I agree with you, but honestly, the left has had an ability to find the most ludicrous hills to die on that has been uncanny. Like, was it so hard to say “yeah, probably a trans female athlete shouldn’t boxe against someone born biologically female, can we know talk about the well-being of the majority of trans that are not olympic athletes”? No, we all had to go and get eviscerated on that tiny, tiny hill because we haven’t had the ball to tell the “wokes” or however one wants to call those white, well educated, “radical” college students to go fuck themeselves.
I like how you take an example of a "trans olympic boxer", when that literally never happened. You have bitten into the republican propaganda, well done!
On September 21 2025 06:57 LightSpectra wrote: It's a meaningless resolution that Dems only voted for so we don't have to hear millions of dollars of attack ads about Dems being so bloodthirsty they won't even vote for a meaningless resolution condemning political violence.
So what? They’ll be attacked anyway.
At some point they have to stop chasing unicorns and deal with the actual horses they have in the stable.
Does the person who goes ‘hm, I was a bit on the fence between Trump and his band of merry cucks, and the Dems, but man not venerating Charlie Kirk affronted my sense of decency, I’m going with the former’ even exist?
Does the "I would vote Dems for democracy, science, human rights and common decency, but they voted for this meaningless resolution so I'll stay home" person exist?
The right crawls over broken glass to vote for someone to destroy their own livelihood because it'll take down some minorities in the same sinking ship, while the left have to do this completely idiotic circular firing squad garbage every thirty seconds.
Yes.
No.
Not on this specific thing, I highly doubt it’s a straw that breaks even the camel with severe osteoporosis’ back, not in isolation.
As part of a continual pattern, yes it absolutely does have an impact. It’s uninspiring. It’s actively alienating if you are in one of the demographics Charlie Kirk shit on routinely to see those who are supposed to be in your camp gargling his balls.
Here’s how it’s done. Maybe Yvette Clarke, who I’ve never encountered before is some monster. This statement, fucking bang on. She lead with the general human decency, and she finished by pointing out Kirk’s lack of it.
Democratic Congresswoman Yvette Clarke says she voted against a Republican-led resolution Friday honouring slain right-wing advocate Charlie Kirk.
“I will always condemn senseless acts of political violence,” Clarke, the daughter of Jamaican immigrants who represents the 9th Congressional District in Brooklyn, told the Caribbean Media Corporation (CMC) on Friday.
“No American—regardless of party or ideology—should fear retribution or violence for speaking freely. Charlie Kirk’s murder was a horrific act of political violence and a stain on the United States, and any nation where young children lose their father solely because of the opinions he espoused is a nation in desperate need of healing and a different path forward,” Clarke said.
“I extend my deepest condolences to the Kirk family, friends, and loved ones, and I pray for strength and comfort for his wife, Erika, their two young children, and all who mourn his loss,” added the chair of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC). “I also commend law enforcement and the suspect’s family for their cooperation in seeking justice for this heinous crime.
“As a Black woman in America, I am painfully mindful of our nation’s history and the violence rooted in bigotry and hate that continues to impact Black and brown communities,” Clarke continued. “And that is precisely why I cannot in good conscience vote to celebrate Charlie Kirk’s legacy. Mr. Kirk denounced the Civil Rights Act of 1964, describing it as a ‘mistake’ and an ‘anti-white weapon.’ He disparaged the transformative work of Dr Martin Luther King Jr, who gave his life for peace and equality. He demeaned Black women, including Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson and others in positions of leadership, dismissing their intelligence and accomplishments as nothing more than ‘DEI hires.’ He also spread disinformation and hate-fuelled rhetoric against Muslim, Jewish, and immigrant communities, while championing lax gun laws despite the devastating toll of gun violence in our nation.”
“Rather than seek to heal a wounded union, this bill aims only to push us further apart,” Clarke said. “For these reasons, I cannot and will not vote to honour a legacy defined by bigotry and division. To do so would dishonour the countless victims of political violence who are too often ignored. If we are to recognise one, we must recognise all.”
She said Kirk undoubtedly valued his right to exercise the First Amendment right to free speech.
“Yet, I am deeply troubled by how this administration has chosen to weaponise free speech, targeting critics under the guise of honouring his legacy,” Clarke said. “Free speech is essential to our democracy—but it cannot be used as a shield for hate.
“If my colleagues feel compelled to pass this legislation, that is their decision,” she added. “I have paid respects to Mr Kirk and his family, but I will not pretend to respect the painful words and ideas he so proudly held, nor will I honour a man who built a career out of dishonouring people like me. I, however, will instead lend my support to Representative Veasey and Pettersen’s resolution that ‘condemns all forms of political violence, including assassination and attempted assassination of public officials, candidates, and public figures, regardless of political party or ideology.’
“If Republican leadership is serious about addressing this crisis of political violence rather than scoring political points over Democrats, so will they,” Clarke continued.
She absolutely crushed that, why can’t Dem leadership do the same? It’s not that bloody complicated
I love Clarke's statement and I'm glad you shared it. I agree with it and in my ideal world, all the other Dems would be voting the same way with similar statements.
Having said that, I'm still not going to be baited into rage over how anyone voted on a meaningless resolution when there's a thousand other issues of actual importance. It's a complete waste of time and energy for anyone whose goal isn't to sew discord.
Careful, you're coming across as way to reasonable to be cool in this thread. If you want to fit in with the "cool" kids you have to hate hard enough to pass the continual purity tests. And make sure to hate hard enough on every single topic!
Useful interjection, well done!
Thank you for noticing! I am trying to take my mothers advice that people show you how they like to be treated by their actions. And since you love this style of post, I thought I would do more for you and your crew. Glad it is working out.
On September 21 2025 22:38 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On September 21 2025 16:46 Phyanketto wrote:
On September 21 2025 14:21 Zambrah wrote:
On September 21 2025 12:12 Phyanketto wrote:
On September 21 2025 11:38 Zambrah wrote:
On September 21 2025 11:00 WombaT wrote:
On September 21 2025 08:33 Zambrah wrote:
Yes.
No.
Not on this specific thing, I highly doubt it’s a straw that breaks even the camel with severe osteoporosis’ back, not in isolation.
As part of a continual pattern, yes it absolutely does have an impact. It’s uninspiring. It’s actively alienating if you are in one of the demographics Charlie Kirk shit on routinely to see those who are supposed to be in your camp gargling his balls.
Democrats are dumb politicians with the smarter electorate and Republicans are smart politicians with the dumb electorate.
Sucky position to be in, really relying a lot on the Democrats to be less moronic, but theyve shown such a low propensity for intelligent political calculus.
The sad part is Republicans aren’t even particularly smart politicians. It’s not like they’re outmanoeuvring folks with fiendish alacrity.
I mean, it’s effective, and yes there are some smart minds involved, but it’s only as effective as it is because the opposition is brainless.
If my go-to thing is just rushing some off-meta muta build to exploit some tendency, that’s pretty smart stuff, sure.
If I do nothing but my pocket muta build for literally like a decade and my opponents, who are all familiar with my style don’t build counters to it, or even units that shoot up, eventually it’s their idiocy that’s the problem, not how smart my build is.
Yeah, I may be overestimating Republicans by virtue of how dumb Democrats seem. Really easy to look like geniuses when youre being compared to the people who keep stepping forward into rakes like Sideshow Bob in that episode of The Simpsons.
I wish Democrats would acknowledge and accept that their voters arent as easy and braindead as the average Republican and actually work with that in mind instead of sitting around with their dicks in their hand bemoaning that the average Democrat voter actually has things they materially care about beyond the color blue.
I think it's difficult for democrats to craft a message because they're obviously a coalition with completely more diverse factions than Republicans, who are broadly split into free-market pro-business anti-financial regulation types and the Christian right. The rich and those who harbor fantasies of becoming rich, and those who don't mind being poor because they believe they're in for a windfall upon death, and who have a cultural distaste for queer people/cultural minorities. Democrats are made up of irreligious educated professionals, urban poor, racial minorities, and more. Republicans have a far easier time selling literally any narrative.
I think theyre far too invested in trying to find the perfect message frankly, I dont think you need a perfect message to drive turnout and enthusiasm (which are the primary things that win Democrats their elections) you need a message that you appear to care about and are enthusiastic about and you believe in.
The real difficulty is Democrats have spent so long not appearing to really care about anything (beyond their donors and decorum) or be enthusiastic about anything or believe in anything that they just dont have the trust of their electorate.
Part of the appeal of Bernie was that he absolutely and authentically believed what he was saying, he had a long history of saying it, everything about him said that his beliefs were real. Other Democrats dont have that, they're wafflers, waiting for their team of mediocre pollsters to assign them their believes as is (perceived to be) electorally convenient.
Swing voters dont mean anything anymore, people dont swap their votes between parties in any vaguely meaningful capacity, we have two camps, Democrats and Republicans, the focus should be in driving as much of your camp out as possible and doing shit like signing a resolution where you see how far down your throat Charlie Kirk's rotting nutsack will fit depresses your camp because the camp isnt the Republican camp.
Get a candidate that cares about something that the populace would benefit from, prove via action in their term that they are fighting like a starving predator to secure the thing they care about. Give people hope, give them something to strive for, something they can feel and appreciate (as an example the Stock Market is not this.)
Stop trying to find what the American people want to buy, theres a long well known fuckin' list, pick something and instead of fretting about whether they still want to buy it or not, focus on selling it to them.
Republicans wouldnt even know trans people existed beyond the occasional transphobic joke in their media if Republicans didnt convince them to give a shit. Republicans are like used car salesman in how they are always sell sell selling their bullshit.
I think its no coincidence that Republicans becoming very anti-trans (moreso than anything else they are anti) started around the time algorithms started being a thing in social media. Engagement weights the algorithm, so any time they would show some kind of trans person crashout or give a braindead extreme take (every group is guilty of having people who do this) it would draw outrage which made it top-performing content in terms of engagement. So more and more people started craving that sort of content while more and more people started trying to fill the demand for it. Notice how whenever they are holding up a trans person to their base, it's never someone who has any chance of passing, or is a criminal (yeah, every group has those too). Racial groups are too big to suffer from that level of misinformation, and even if most people are racist, they acknowledge the objects of their dislike didn't have any hand in being what they were, as opposed to being sold the notion that being trans is a choice and comorbid with all sorts of other shit. We're too far down the road to undo that level of misinformation, and the left, stupidly, has decided to keep mum on the issue, and fuel the fire by only ever talking about 'trans kids' rather than trans people. It played right the fuck into their hands.
I agree with you, but honestly, the left has had an ability to find the most ludicrous hills to die on that has been uncanny. Like, was it so hard to say “yeah, probably a trans female athlete shouldn’t boxe against someone born biologically female, can we know talk about the well-being of the majority of trans that are not olympic athletes”? No, we all had to go and get eviscerated on that tiny, tiny hill because we haven’t had the ball to tell the “wokes” or however one wants to call those white, well educated, “radical” college students to go fuck themeselves.
I like how you take an example of a "trans olympic boxer", when that literally never happened. You have bitten into the republican propaganda, well done!
It’s not entirely off, but not entirely correct either. Not trans boxer(s), but if memory serves/it’s what Biff’s referring to, two intersex athletes.
I think ‘literally never happened’ is stretching it, although I do disagree with parts of his post.
On September 21 2025 22:38 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On September 21 2025 16:46 Phyanketto wrote:
On September 21 2025 14:21 Zambrah wrote:
On September 21 2025 12:12 Phyanketto wrote:
On September 21 2025 11:38 Zambrah wrote:
On September 21 2025 11:00 WombaT wrote:
On September 21 2025 08:33 Zambrah wrote:
Yes.
No.
Not on this specific thing, I highly doubt it’s a straw that breaks even the camel with severe osteoporosis’ back, not in isolation.
As part of a continual pattern, yes it absolutely does have an impact. It’s uninspiring. It’s actively alienating if you are in one of the demographics Charlie Kirk shit on routinely to see those who are supposed to be in your camp gargling his balls.
Democrats are dumb politicians with the smarter electorate and Republicans are smart politicians with the dumb electorate.
Sucky position to be in, really relying a lot on the Democrats to be less moronic, but theyve shown such a low propensity for intelligent political calculus.
The sad part is Republicans aren’t even particularly smart politicians. It’s not like they’re outmanoeuvring folks with fiendish alacrity.
I mean, it’s effective, and yes there are some smart minds involved, but it’s only as effective as it is because the opposition is brainless.
If my go-to thing is just rushing some off-meta muta build to exploit some tendency, that’s pretty smart stuff, sure.
If I do nothing but my pocket muta build for literally like a decade and my opponents, who are all familiar with my style don’t build counters to it, or even units that shoot up, eventually it’s their idiocy that’s the problem, not how smart my build is.
Yeah, I may be overestimating Republicans by virtue of how dumb Democrats seem. Really easy to look like geniuses when youre being compared to the people who keep stepping forward into rakes like Sideshow Bob in that episode of The Simpsons.
I wish Democrats would acknowledge and accept that their voters arent as easy and braindead as the average Republican and actually work with that in mind instead of sitting around with their dicks in their hand bemoaning that the average Democrat voter actually has things they materially care about beyond the color blue.
I think it's difficult for democrats to craft a message because they're obviously a coalition with completely more diverse factions than Republicans, who are broadly split into free-market pro-business anti-financial regulation types and the Christian right. The rich and those who harbor fantasies of becoming rich, and those who don't mind being poor because they believe they're in for a windfall upon death, and who have a cultural distaste for queer people/cultural minorities. Democrats are made up of irreligious educated professionals, urban poor, racial minorities, and more. Republicans have a far easier time selling literally any narrative.
I think theyre far too invested in trying to find the perfect message frankly, I dont think you need a perfect message to drive turnout and enthusiasm (which are the primary things that win Democrats their elections) you need a message that you appear to care about and are enthusiastic about and you believe in.
The real difficulty is Democrats have spent so long not appearing to really care about anything (beyond their donors and decorum) or be enthusiastic about anything or believe in anything that they just dont have the trust of their electorate.
Part of the appeal of Bernie was that he absolutely and authentically believed what he was saying, he had a long history of saying it, everything about him said that his beliefs were real. Other Democrats dont have that, they're wafflers, waiting for their team of mediocre pollsters to assign them their believes as is (perceived to be) electorally convenient.
Swing voters dont mean anything anymore, people dont swap their votes between parties in any vaguely meaningful capacity, we have two camps, Democrats and Republicans, the focus should be in driving as much of your camp out as possible and doing shit like signing a resolution where you see how far down your throat Charlie Kirk's rotting nutsack will fit depresses your camp because the camp isnt the Republican camp.
Get a candidate that cares about something that the populace would benefit from, prove via action in their term that they are fighting like a starving predator to secure the thing they care about. Give people hope, give them something to strive for, something they can feel and appreciate (as an example the Stock Market is not this.)
Stop trying to find what the American people want to buy, theres a long well known fuckin' list, pick something and instead of fretting about whether they still want to buy it or not, focus on selling it to them.
Republicans wouldnt even know trans people existed beyond the occasional transphobic joke in their media if Republicans didnt convince them to give a shit. Republicans are like used car salesman in how they are always sell sell selling their bullshit.
I think its no coincidence that Republicans becoming very anti-trans (moreso than anything else they are anti) started around the time algorithms started being a thing in social media. Engagement weights the algorithm, so any time they would show some kind of trans person crashout or give a braindead extreme take (every group is guilty of having people who do this) it would draw outrage which made it top-performing content in terms of engagement. So more and more people started craving that sort of content while more and more people started trying to fill the demand for it. Notice how whenever they are holding up a trans person to their base, it's never someone who has any chance of passing, or is a criminal (yeah, every group has those too). Racial groups are too big to suffer from that level of misinformation, and even if most people are racist, they acknowledge the objects of their dislike didn't have any hand in being what they were, as opposed to being sold the notion that being trans is a choice and comorbid with all sorts of other shit. We're too far down the road to undo that level of misinformation, and the left, stupidly, has decided to keep mum on the issue, and fuel the fire by only ever talking about 'trans kids' rather than trans people. It played right the fuck into their hands.
I agree with you, but honestly, the left has had an ability to find the most ludicrous hills to die on that has been uncanny. Like, was it so hard to say “yeah, probably a trans female athlete shouldn’t boxe against someone born biologically female, can we know talk about the well-being of the majority of trans that are not olympic athletes”? No, we all had to go and get eviscerated on that tiny, tiny hill because we haven’t had the ball to tell the “wokes” or however one wants to call those white, well educated, “radical” college students to go fuck themeselves.
I like how you take an example of a "trans olympic boxer", when that literally never happened. You have bitten into the republican propaganda, well done!
It’s not entirely off, but not entirely correct either. Not trans boxer(s), but if memory serves/it’s what Biff’s referring to, two intersex athletes.
I think ‘literally never happened’ is stretching it, although I do disagree with parts of his post.
He could've talked about actually trans athletes then. Imane Khelif, by definition, is not trans. She *may* be intersex but she absolutely has lived her life as a woman and afaik is able to give birth. Linking this situation to trans issues is muddying the water and focusing on weeds. I don't know if trans athletes should be allowed to compete, but at the very least it needs to be studied more if there is an advantage or not, and how big said advantage is.
As for the Khelif case, if we ban her for an "unfair advantage" you might as well ban any man over 2 meters from playing basketball since that is an "unfair advantage"
On September 21 2025 08:47 Vivax wrote: Good to know that influencers, social media and politicians have an opinion on the motivator for crimes before law enforcement does.
Candace Owens offers a healthy level of skepticism regarding Kirk's death.
DPB said it better than I could already.
Healthy skepticism this ain’t, also her implication that folks send her potentially crucial evidence for one of the most high profile crimes in recent American history is, rather than law enforcement is insane
This kind of, seemingly pathological desire to put out theories, and spread them online almost before Kirk’s body is even cold, hell probably before he was confirmed dead ain’t healthy, and it ain’t responsible. Across the political board btw.
This ain’t the classic hobbyist conspiracy theories, your JFKs or what happened to Jimmy Hoffa. There’s sufficient distance there.
There isn’t law enforcement anymore. The FBI is run by a children’s book author who writes fanfic about Trump. It spends its time doctoring the Epstein files to cover up his rapes.
On September 21 2025 08:47 Vivax wrote: Good to know that influencers, social media and politicians have an opinion on the motivator for crimes before law enforcement does.
Candace Owens offers a healthy level of skepticism regarding Kirk's death.
DPB said it better than I could already.
Healthy skepticism this ain’t, also her implication that folks send her potentially crucial evidence for one of the most high profile crimes in recent American history is, rather than law enforcement is insane
This kind of, seemingly pathological desire to put out theories, and spread them online almost before Kirk’s body is even cold, hell probably before he was confirmed dead ain’t healthy, and it ain’t responsible. Across the political board btw.
This ain’t the classic hobbyist conspiracy theories, your JFKs or what happened to Jimmy Hoffa. There’s sufficient distance there.
There isn’t law enforcement anymore. The FBI is run by a children’s book author who writes fanfic about Trump. It spends its time doctoring the Epstein files to cover up his rapes.
I don’t have much faith in law enforcement even-handedly policing different political protests in this country, I do broadly trust them to investigate a murder.
The two sentiments can co-exist.
Outside of shooting someone on 5th Avenue, I struggle to think of anything conceivable Trump could do to get the FBI looking at it in this term, under current leadership.
Which yeah, disgraceful state of affairs. It doesn’t necessarily follow that everything is some conspiracy that needs to be rampantly speculated on, often irresponsibly IMO. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
On September 21 2025 08:47 Vivax wrote: Good to know that influencers, social media and politicians have an opinion on the motivator for crimes before law enforcement does.
Candace is saying Charlie Kirk was given a stern warning before he was killed.
Please stop posting videos from this moron. Anything credible she says, you should be able to find corroborated by someone who isn't so utterly biased, idiotic, and close to Charlie Kirk. The corroborating news sources would be much more valuable and taken seriously, so please post those instead.
On September 21 2025 08:47 Vivax wrote: Good to know that influencers, social media and politicians have an opinion on the motivator for crimes before law enforcement does.
Candace is saying Charlie Kirk was given a stern warning before he was killed.
Please stop posting videos from this moron. Anything credible she says, you should be able to find corroborated by someone who isn't so utterly biased, idiotic, and close to Charlie Kirk. The corroborating news sources would be much more valuable and taken seriously, so please post those instead.
JJR unironically posts Asmongold videos in the games industry thread, your not going to get proper sources from him because he is neck deep in the shit side of the internet.
On September 21 2025 08:47 Vivax wrote: Good to know that influencers, social media and politicians have an opinion on the motivator for crimes before law enforcement does.
Candace is saying Charlie Kirk was given a stern warning before he was killed.
Please stop posting videos from this moron. Anything credible she says, you should be able to find corroborated by someone who isn't so utterly biased, idiotic, and close to Charlie Kirk. The corroborating news sources would be much more valuable and taken seriously, so please post those instead.
JJR unironically posts Asmongold videos in the games industry thread, your not going to get proper sources from him because he is neck deep in the shit side of the internet.
I don’t have a huge issue with that, it’s his propensity to just post like a 39 minute video, with no explanation (against thread rules), and he also usually just avoids engaging with any counterpoints for the poor souls who do watch his repost.
Only Nettles is worse for just dropping some point, and then disappearing until the next one a few weeks later.
On September 21 2025 08:47 Vivax wrote: Good to know that influencers, social media and politicians have an opinion on the motivator for crimes before law enforcement does.
Candace Owens offers a healthy level of skepticism regarding Kirk's death.
DPB said it better than I could already.
Healthy skepticism this ain’t, also her implication that folks send her potentially crucial evidence for one of the most high profile crimes in recent American history is, rather than law enforcement is insane
This kind of, seemingly pathological desire to put out theories, and spread them online almost before Kirk’s body is even cold, hell probably before he was confirmed dead ain’t healthy, and it ain’t responsible. Across the political board btw.
This ain’t the classic hobbyist conspiracy theories, your JFKs or what happened to Jimmy Hoffa. There’s sufficient distance there.
There isn’t law enforcement anymore. The FBI is run by a children’s book author who writes fanfic about Trump. It spends its time doctoring the Epstein files to cover up his rapes.
I don’t have much faith in law enforcement even-handedly policing different political protests in this country, I do broadly trust them to investigate a murder.
The two sentiments can co-exist.
Outside of shooting someone on 5th Avenue, I struggle to think of anything conceivable Trump could do to get the FBI looking at it in this term, under current leadership.
Which yeah, disgraceful state of affairs. It doesn’t necessarily follow that everything is some conspiracy that needs to be rampantly speculated on, often irresponsibly IMO. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
It's discomforting that we have to pretend stuff like the text messages look like they came from a terminally online early 20's gamer because some of the right wing weirdos also noticed all the boomer police speak.
Or how about this one where they claim CK's final act was a miracle (incoming Saint Charlie) of stopping a 30-06 bullet with his neck (*sigh*) saving the (seemingly no) people behind him.
Are we supposed to believe all of that, some of it, none of it? I don't even know anymore. My intuition is to assume it is all bullshit, but then I don't actually know. Maybe there were people behind the tent or whatever, maybe it was a 30-06, maybe his neck is superhuman, or maybe (this is usually the safe bet) Fox news is full of shit. But then, afaik, that's just the official narrative atm (maybe not?).
I can't overstate how badly the Democrats that preferred Hillary to Bernie (don't think any of those type of posters stuck around to see the consequences of their actions) fucked us not just in 2016, but in 2020 and 2024 with Biden (and possibly 2026 and 2028) too.
It increasingly feels like our options are just waiting to see if the fascists implode because of their own incompetence or rule for a generation or few because of Democrats' incompetence.
Not on this specific thing, I highly doubt it’s a straw that breaks even the camel with severe osteoporosis’ back, not in isolation.
As part of a continual pattern, yes it absolutely does have an impact. It’s uninspiring. It’s actively alienating if you are in one of the demographics Charlie Kirk shit on routinely to see those who are supposed to be in your camp gargling his balls.
Democrats are dumb politicians with the smarter electorate and Republicans are smart politicians with the dumb electorate.
Sucky position to be in, really relying a lot on the Democrats to be less moronic, but theyve shown such a low propensity for intelligent political calculus.
The sad part is Republicans aren’t even particularly smart politicians. It’s not like they’re outmanoeuvring folks with fiendish alacrity.
I mean, it’s effective, and yes there are some smart minds involved, but it’s only as effective as it is because the opposition is brainless.
If my go-to thing is just rushing some off-meta muta build to exploit some tendency, that’s pretty smart stuff, sure.
If I do nothing but my pocket muta build for literally like a decade and my opponents, who are all familiar with my style don’t build counters to it, or even units that shoot up, eventually it’s their idiocy that’s the problem, not how smart my build is.
Yeah, I may be overestimating Republicans by virtue of how dumb Democrats seem. Really easy to look like geniuses when youre being compared to the people who keep stepping forward into rakes like Sideshow Bob in that episode of The Simpsons.
I wish Democrats would acknowledge and accept that their voters arent as easy and braindead as the average Republican and actually work with that in mind instead of sitting around with their dicks in their hand bemoaning that the average Democrat voter actually has things they materially care about beyond the color blue.
I think it's difficult for democrats to craft a message because they're obviously a coalition with completely more diverse factions than Republicans, who are broadly split into free-market pro-business anti-financial regulation types and the Christian right. The rich and those who harbor fantasies of becoming rich, and those who don't mind being poor because they believe they're in for a windfall upon death, and who have a cultural distaste for queer people/cultural minorities. Democrats are made up of irreligious educated professionals, urban poor, racial minorities, and more. Republicans have a far easier time selling literally any narrative.
I think theyre far too invested in trying to find the perfect message frankly, I dont think you need a perfect message to drive turnout and enthusiasm (which are the primary things that win Democrats their elections) you need a message that you appear to care about and are enthusiastic about and you believe in.
The real difficulty is Democrats have spent so long not appearing to really care about anything (beyond their donors and decorum) or be enthusiastic about anything or believe in anything that they just dont have the trust of their electorate.
Part of the appeal of Bernie was that he absolutely and authentically believed what he was saying, he had a long history of saying it, everything about him said that his beliefs were real. Other Democrats dont have that, they're wafflers, waiting for their team of mediocre pollsters to assign them their believes as is (perceived to be) electorally convenient.
Hypothetical: We're back in 2016. Hillary Clinton just became the Democratic nominee for the presidential election. Instead of choosing her runningmate to be Tim Kaine, she chooses Bernie Sanders. Does the Clinton/Sanders ticket beat the Trump/Pence ticket?
(I know that Sanders sincerely campaigned for Clinton after their primary was decided, but I wonder if the progressive/left wing would have been even more galvanized if Clinton had thrown them the giant bone of directly adding Sanders for vice president. Surely it's worth considering combining the two Democratic candidates who received the most votes in the primary.)
I'd like to think that a Clinton/Sanders ticket would have won. By extension, I wonder if creating the next Democratic P/VP ticket by simply combining the top two primary candidates is a decent default strategy, especially if one of them is more moderate and the other is more progressive.
Have you read GH posts? I think you get your answers no further than there.
Also, Clinton was centre / centre right, Bernie is firmly left. I think the Clinton camp felt it would lose its moderates to Trump by getting a VP that made the “Socialist Revolution” its campaign slogan (which was dumb af, even though i agree with 99% of his positions).
Then they decided to go full identity politics anyway rather than addressing inequalities and the struggles of the working class and the rest is history.
Clinton had many policies to help the working class and unions and shift the tax burden onto the luxury class. Her platform was more to the left than Obama's. The idea that she went "full identity politics" is a lie straight from right-wing media, they specifically shifted the conversation into identity politics because any working class person with a brain could see that her platform was infinitely better than Trump's on an economic level.
We live in an overwhelmingly conservative country because the conservative-dominated media would rather people fight culture wars than class wars.
Even in this very thread the left-leaning people are more outraged over a Congressional resolution that affects nobody anywhere on the planet rather than the decimation of the working class Republicans are directly responsible for. A better world won't be possible until we stop letting the right turn ourselves into a circular firing squad.
Not on this specific thing, I highly doubt it’s a straw that breaks even the camel with severe osteoporosis’ back, not in isolation.
As part of a continual pattern, yes it absolutely does have an impact. It’s uninspiring. It’s actively alienating if you are in one of the demographics Charlie Kirk shit on routinely to see those who are supposed to be in your camp gargling his balls.
Democrats are dumb politicians with the smarter electorate and Republicans are smart politicians with the dumb electorate.
Sucky position to be in, really relying a lot on the Democrats to be less moronic, but theyve shown such a low propensity for intelligent political calculus.
The sad part is Republicans aren’t even particularly smart politicians. It’s not like they’re outmanoeuvring folks with fiendish alacrity.
I mean, it’s effective, and yes there are some smart minds involved, but it’s only as effective as it is because the opposition is brainless.
If my go-to thing is just rushing some off-meta muta build to exploit some tendency, that’s pretty smart stuff, sure.
If I do nothing but my pocket muta build for literally like a decade and my opponents, who are all familiar with my style don’t build counters to it, or even units that shoot up, eventually it’s their idiocy that’s the problem, not how smart my build is.
Yeah, I may be overestimating Republicans by virtue of how dumb Democrats seem. Really easy to look like geniuses when youre being compared to the people who keep stepping forward into rakes like Sideshow Bob in that episode of The Simpsons.
I wish Democrats would acknowledge and accept that their voters arent as easy and braindead as the average Republican and actually work with that in mind instead of sitting around with their dicks in their hand bemoaning that the average Democrat voter actually has things they materially care about beyond the color blue.
I think it's difficult for democrats to craft a message because they're obviously a coalition with completely more diverse factions than Republicans, who are broadly split into free-market pro-business anti-financial regulation types and the Christian right. The rich and those who harbor fantasies of becoming rich, and those who don't mind being poor because they believe they're in for a windfall upon death, and who have a cultural distaste for queer people/cultural minorities. Democrats are made up of irreligious educated professionals, urban poor, racial minorities, and more. Republicans have a far easier time selling literally any narrative.
I think theyre far too invested in trying to find the perfect message frankly, I dont think you need a perfect message to drive turnout and enthusiasm (which are the primary things that win Democrats their elections) you need a message that you appear to care about and are enthusiastic about and you believe in.
The real difficulty is Democrats have spent so long not appearing to really care about anything (beyond their donors and decorum) or be enthusiastic about anything or believe in anything that they just dont have the trust of their electorate.
Part of the appeal of Bernie was that he absolutely and authentically believed what he was saying, he had a long history of saying it, everything about him said that his beliefs were real. Other Democrats dont have that, they're wafflers, waiting for their team of mediocre pollsters to assign them their believes as is (perceived to be) electorally convenient.
Hypothetical: We're back in 2016. Hillary Clinton just became the Democratic nominee for the presidential election. Instead of choosing her runningmate to be Tim Kaine, she chooses Bernie Sanders. Does the Clinton/Sanders ticket beat the Trump/Pence ticket?
(I know that Sanders sincerely campaigned for Clinton after their primary was decided, but I wonder if the progressive/left wing would have been even more galvanized if Clinton had thrown them the giant bone of directly adding Sanders for vice president. Surely it's worth considering combining the two Democratic candidates who received the most votes in the primary.)
I'd like to think that a Clinton/Sanders ticket would have won. By extension, I wonder if creating the next Democratic P/VP ticket by simply combining the top two primary candidates is a decent default strategy, especially if one of them is more moderate and the other is more progressive.
Literally anything could (and did) change the Trump/Clinton election because it simply was that close.
Yeah that's fair. I don't even think Tim Kaine is a particularly bad person, and I wouldn't blame him for the 2016 loss.
Not on this specific thing, I highly doubt it’s a straw that breaks even the camel with severe osteoporosis’ back, not in isolation.
As part of a continual pattern, yes it absolutely does have an impact. It’s uninspiring. It’s actively alienating if you are in one of the demographics Charlie Kirk shit on routinely to see those who are supposed to be in your camp gargling his balls.
Democrats are dumb politicians with the smarter electorate and Republicans are smart politicians with the dumb electorate.
Sucky position to be in, really relying a lot on the Democrats to be less moronic, but theyve shown such a low propensity for intelligent political calculus.
The sad part is Republicans aren’t even particularly smart politicians. It’s not like they’re outmanoeuvring folks with fiendish alacrity.
I mean, it’s effective, and yes there are some smart minds involved, but it’s only as effective as it is because the opposition is brainless.
If my go-to thing is just rushing some off-meta muta build to exploit some tendency, that’s pretty smart stuff, sure.
If I do nothing but my pocket muta build for literally like a decade and my opponents, who are all familiar with my style don’t build counters to it, or even units that shoot up, eventually it’s their idiocy that’s the problem, not how smart my build is.
Yeah, I may be overestimating Republicans by virtue of how dumb Democrats seem. Really easy to look like geniuses when youre being compared to the people who keep stepping forward into rakes like Sideshow Bob in that episode of The Simpsons.
I wish Democrats would acknowledge and accept that their voters arent as easy and braindead as the average Republican and actually work with that in mind instead of sitting around with their dicks in their hand bemoaning that the average Democrat voter actually has things they materially care about beyond the color blue.
I think it's difficult for democrats to craft a message because they're obviously a coalition with completely more diverse factions than Republicans, who are broadly split into free-market pro-business anti-financial regulation types and the Christian right. The rich and those who harbor fantasies of becoming rich, and those who don't mind being poor because they believe they're in for a windfall upon death, and who have a cultural distaste for queer people/cultural minorities. Democrats are made up of irreligious educated professionals, urban poor, racial minorities, and more. Republicans have a far easier time selling literally any narrative.
I think theyre far too invested in trying to find the perfect message frankly, I dont think you need a perfect message to drive turnout and enthusiasm (which are the primary things that win Democrats their elections) you need a message that you appear to care about and are enthusiastic about and you believe in.
The real difficulty is Democrats have spent so long not appearing to really care about anything (beyond their donors and decorum) or be enthusiastic about anything or believe in anything that they just dont have the trust of their electorate.
Part of the appeal of Bernie was that he absolutely and authentically believed what he was saying, he had a long history of saying it, everything about him said that his beliefs were real. Other Democrats dont have that, they're wafflers, waiting for their team of mediocre pollsters to assign them their believes as is (perceived to be) electorally convenient.
Hypothetical: We're back in 2016. Hillary Clinton just became the Democratic nominee for the presidential election. Instead of choosing her runningmate to be Tim Kaine, she chooses Bernie Sanders. Does the Clinton/Sanders ticket beat the Trump/Pence ticket?
(I know that Sanders sincerely campaigned for Clinton after their primary was decided, but I wonder if the progressive/left wing would have been even more galvanized if Clinton had thrown them the giant bone of directly adding Sanders for vice president. Surely it's worth considering combining the two Democratic candidates who received the most votes in the primary.)
I'd like to think that a Clinton/Sanders ticket would have won. By extension, I wonder if creating the next Democratic P/VP ticket by simply combining the top two primary candidates is a decent default strategy, especially if one of them is more moderate and the other is more progressive.
I guess there’s maybe an argument it also dilutes your messaging a bit? Like ‘hey I’m Ms competency and centrist stability, but if I die my deputy with completely different politics will have my job’ in the Clinton/Sanders
I mean I still think it’s a good idea overall, just playing devil’s advocate for a second. It does confuse me they don’t do more of this kinda thing. Throw the auld bone out.
I had suggested that, if not the VP ticket, why not promise to appoint Sanders (in this example) to a position they’re strong and have bona fides in. And have Sanders on the campaign trail, doing their thing there. Healthcare, could be one such area for Sanders, financial regulation for an Elizabeth Warren was another hypothetical one
I think there are bonuses in such an approach, aside from broadening the church a bit, you also stick people in roles they’re known to be strong in, and ideally, where their stances are also popular.
Bernie may be too left for many in totality, as a VP, next in line kinda guy. But damn, that boy speaks sense on (insert topic here) Some may not especially like Warren, or mock her as Pocahontas or whatever, but darn it if she doesn’t talk sense on banking.
Obama did actually kind of do this in a notable case. He’s pretty inexperienced right? Let’s put his main primary rivalry in one of the big, important prestige diplomatic roles. That’s a good move as well.
If it’s a broad church, reflect it in how you staff your administration. Although I myself rather notably skew left, I don’t think that’s the sole direction you go as the Democratic Party.
Some areas, the more centrist positions will be more popular, or maybe you really need a greasy, seasoned operator to get shit done. Just pick accordingly, that’s fine!
Obviously there are actual people involved, they may not want x position for whatever reason, that’s going to be a factor.
Overall it seems absolutely blindingly obvious to moi to do something in that general spirit.
I understand that it could dilute the nominee's message of having the best positions on issues, and maybe that's not the ideal message to begin with? Perhaps a better and more appealing message could be that you're willing to work with those who are in slight disagreement but still have the same overarching goals; this alternative message could be made more credible if a liberal/moderate nominee selected a progressive/left-wing runningmate (and vice-versa).
As far as assigning Cabinet positions is concerned, I definitely agree with you that those with expertise in the field should be chosen. I think Democrats do a decent job of picking experienced members in that way (certainly better than the laughingstocks from both of Trump's presidencies). Regardless, the potential Cabinet appointees probably aren't super important for winning votes before the election is even decided.
Cabinet members can be important if they are famous and you want their fame as part of the campaign. Apart from that I doubt anybody cares, they assume you will pick people aligning with your platform that are qualified. Not whatever Trump is doing.
Not on this specific thing, I highly doubt it’s a straw that breaks even the camel with severe osteoporosis’ back, not in isolation.
As part of a continual pattern, yes it absolutely does have an impact. It’s uninspiring. It’s actively alienating if you are in one of the demographics Charlie Kirk shit on routinely to see those who are supposed to be in your camp gargling his balls.
Democrats are dumb politicians with the smarter electorate and Republicans are smart politicians with the dumb electorate.
Sucky position to be in, really relying a lot on the Democrats to be less moronic, but theyve shown such a low propensity for intelligent political calculus.
The sad part is Republicans aren’t even particularly smart politicians. It’s not like they’re outmanoeuvring folks with fiendish alacrity.
I mean, it’s effective, and yes there are some smart minds involved, but it’s only as effective as it is because the opposition is brainless.
If my go-to thing is just rushing some off-meta muta build to exploit some tendency, that’s pretty smart stuff, sure.
If I do nothing but my pocket muta build for literally like a decade and my opponents, who are all familiar with my style don’t build counters to it, or even units that shoot up, eventually it’s their idiocy that’s the problem, not how smart my build is.
Yeah, I may be overestimating Republicans by virtue of how dumb Democrats seem. Really easy to look like geniuses when youre being compared to the people who keep stepping forward into rakes like Sideshow Bob in that episode of The Simpsons.
I wish Democrats would acknowledge and accept that their voters arent as easy and braindead as the average Republican and actually work with that in mind instead of sitting around with their dicks in their hand bemoaning that the average Democrat voter actually has things they materially care about beyond the color blue.
I think it's difficult for democrats to craft a message because they're obviously a coalition with completely more diverse factions than Republicans, who are broadly split into free-market pro-business anti-financial regulation types and the Christian right. The rich and those who harbor fantasies of becoming rich, and those who don't mind being poor because they believe they're in for a windfall upon death, and who have a cultural distaste for queer people/cultural minorities. Democrats are made up of irreligious educated professionals, urban poor, racial minorities, and more. Republicans have a far easier time selling literally any narrative.
I think theyre far too invested in trying to find the perfect message frankly, I dont think you need a perfect message to drive turnout and enthusiasm (which are the primary things that win Democrats their elections) you need a message that you appear to care about and are enthusiastic about and you believe in.
The real difficulty is Democrats have spent so long not appearing to really care about anything (beyond their donors and decorum) or be enthusiastic about anything or believe in anything that they just dont have the trust of their electorate.
Part of the appeal of Bernie was that he absolutely and authentically believed what he was saying, he had a long history of saying it, everything about him said that his beliefs were real. Other Democrats dont have that, they're wafflers, waiting for their team of mediocre pollsters to assign them their believes as is (perceived to be) electorally convenient.
Hypothetical: We're back in 2016. Hillary Clinton just became the Democratic nominee for the presidential election. Instead of choosing her runningmate to be Tim Kaine, she chooses Bernie Sanders. Does the Clinton/Sanders ticket beat the Trump/Pence ticket?
(I know that Sanders sincerely campaigned for Clinton after their primary was decided, but I wonder if the progressive/left wing would have been even more galvanized if Clinton had thrown them the giant bone of directly adding Sanders for vice president. Surely it's worth considering combining the two Democratic candidates who received the most votes in the primary.)
I'd like to think that a Clinton/Sanders ticket would have won. By extension, I wonder if creating the next Democratic P/VP ticket by simply combining the top two primary candidates is a decent default strategy, especially if one of them is more moderate and the other is more progressive.
Literally anything could (and did) change the Trump/Clinton election because it simply was that close.
Yeah that's fair. I don't even think Tim Kaine is a particularly bad person, and I wouldn't blame him for the 2016 loss.
Not on this specific thing, I highly doubt it’s a straw that breaks even the camel with severe osteoporosis’ back, not in isolation.
As part of a continual pattern, yes it absolutely does have an impact. It’s uninspiring. It’s actively alienating if you are in one of the demographics Charlie Kirk shit on routinely to see those who are supposed to be in your camp gargling his balls.
Democrats are dumb politicians with the smarter electorate and Republicans are smart politicians with the dumb electorate.
Sucky position to be in, really relying a lot on the Democrats to be less moronic, but theyve shown such a low propensity for intelligent political calculus.
The sad part is Republicans aren’t even particularly smart politicians. It’s not like they’re outmanoeuvring folks with fiendish alacrity.
I mean, it’s effective, and yes there are some smart minds involved, but it’s only as effective as it is because the opposition is brainless.
If my go-to thing is just rushing some off-meta muta build to exploit some tendency, that’s pretty smart stuff, sure.
If I do nothing but my pocket muta build for literally like a decade and my opponents, who are all familiar with my style don’t build counters to it, or even units that shoot up, eventually it’s their idiocy that’s the problem, not how smart my build is.
Yeah, I may be overestimating Republicans by virtue of how dumb Democrats seem. Really easy to look like geniuses when youre being compared to the people who keep stepping forward into rakes like Sideshow Bob in that episode of The Simpsons.
I wish Democrats would acknowledge and accept that their voters arent as easy and braindead as the average Republican and actually work with that in mind instead of sitting around with their dicks in their hand bemoaning that the average Democrat voter actually has things they materially care about beyond the color blue.
I think it's difficult for democrats to craft a message because they're obviously a coalition with completely more diverse factions than Republicans, who are broadly split into free-market pro-business anti-financial regulation types and the Christian right. The rich and those who harbor fantasies of becoming rich, and those who don't mind being poor because they believe they're in for a windfall upon death, and who have a cultural distaste for queer people/cultural minorities. Democrats are made up of irreligious educated professionals, urban poor, racial minorities, and more. Republicans have a far easier time selling literally any narrative.
I think theyre far too invested in trying to find the perfect message frankly, I dont think you need a perfect message to drive turnout and enthusiasm (which are the primary things that win Democrats their elections) you need a message that you appear to care about and are enthusiastic about and you believe in.
The real difficulty is Democrats have spent so long not appearing to really care about anything (beyond their donors and decorum) or be enthusiastic about anything or believe in anything that they just dont have the trust of their electorate.
Part of the appeal of Bernie was that he absolutely and authentically believed what he was saying, he had a long history of saying it, everything about him said that his beliefs were real. Other Democrats dont have that, they're wafflers, waiting for their team of mediocre pollsters to assign them their believes as is (perceived to be) electorally convenient.
Hypothetical: We're back in 2016. Hillary Clinton just became the Democratic nominee for the presidential election. Instead of choosing her runningmate to be Tim Kaine, she chooses Bernie Sanders. Does the Clinton/Sanders ticket beat the Trump/Pence ticket?
(I know that Sanders sincerely campaigned for Clinton after their primary was decided, but I wonder if the progressive/left wing would have been even more galvanized if Clinton had thrown them the giant bone of directly adding Sanders for vice president. Surely it's worth considering combining the two Democratic candidates who received the most votes in the primary.)
I'd like to think that a Clinton/Sanders ticket would have won. By extension, I wonder if creating the next Democratic P/VP ticket by simply combining the top two primary candidates is a decent default strategy, especially if one of them is more moderate and the other is more progressive.
I guess there’s maybe an argument it also dilutes your messaging a bit? Like ‘hey I’m Ms competency and centrist stability, but if I die my deputy with completely different politics will have my job’ in the Clinton/Sanders
I mean I still think it’s a good idea overall, just playing devil’s advocate for a second. It does confuse me they don’t do more of this kinda thing. Throw the auld bone out.
I had suggested that, if not the VP ticket, why not promise to appoint Sanders (in this example) to a position they’re strong and have bona fides in. And have Sanders on the campaign trail, doing their thing there. Healthcare, could be one such area for Sanders, financial regulation for an Elizabeth Warren was another hypothetical one
I think there are bonuses in such an approach, aside from broadening the church a bit, you also stick people in roles they’re known to be strong in, and ideally, where their stances are also popular.
Bernie may be too left for many in totality, as a VP, next in line kinda guy. But damn, that boy speaks sense on (insert topic here) Some may not especially like Warren, or mock her as Pocahontas or whatever, but darn it if she doesn’t talk sense on banking.
Obama did actually kind of do this in a notable case. He’s pretty inexperienced right? Let’s put his main primary rivalry in one of the big, important prestige diplomatic roles. That’s a good move as well.
If it’s a broad church, reflect it in how you staff your administration. Although I myself rather notably skew left, I don’t think that’s the sole direction you go as the Democratic Party.
Some areas, the more centrist positions will be more popular, or maybe you really need a greasy, seasoned operator to get shit done. Just pick accordingly, that’s fine!
Obviously there are actual people involved, they may not want x position for whatever reason, that’s going to be a factor.
Overall it seems absolutely blindingly obvious to moi to do something in that general spirit.
I understand that it could dilute the nominee's message of having the best positions on issues, and maybe that's not the ideal message to begin with? Perhaps a better and more appealing message could be that you're willing to work with those who are in slight disagreement but still have the same overarching goals; this alternative message could be made more credible if a liberal/moderate nominee selected a progressive/left-wing runningmate (and vice-versa).
As far as assigning Cabinet positions is concerned, I definitely agree with you that those with expertise in the field should be chosen. I think Democrats do a decent job of picking experienced members in that way (certainly better than the laughingstocks from both of Trump's presidencies). Regardless, the potential Cabinet appointees probably aren't super important for winning votes before the election is even decided.
My rationale here is twofold. The VP pick is to round out a ticket, and the VP pick tends to be rather subservient and unobtrusive generally, they’re meant to dovetail with the main ticket, smooth out a few edges.
Even though, yes if the President dies, they are the President. But they’re not really actually treated like that is the case.
Aside from perhaps mixed messaging if you put a real prominent, popular politician as VP who’s quite different from you politically, so let’s go with Clinton/Sanders as the hypothetical, the alternative is kinda neutering the potency of Sanders, if he’s obviously the junior partner and doesn’t get to do his thing. So he’s less of an asset in a kinda generalised, junior partner role.
I don’t think you have to go ‘here is my cabinet’ ahead of time, you can coordinate campaigning so that your envisaged cabinet, centre their assistance on their strong areas.
Let’s take Sanders for example. Let’s completely arbitrarily say across 6 policy areas, the left of the country agree with him on 6, the centre left it’s maybe 4, the centre 2. The centre right, 1.
If you have Sanders out campaigning, and on message in the 1 category that basically everyone agrees on, that’s a big asset. Especially if you rinse and repeat that process with other individuals.
We saw illustrated in a non-ideal way with Luigi, or indeed consistent polling for years that healthcare reform is extremely popular among Americans. In a way perhaps the totality of Sander’s prescriptions are not across the board
EPT
