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.
The British Army (generally) didn’t obscure their faces while serving in Northern Ireland, even as the Troubles were at their worst. Plenty were killed, but that was the business they entered.
The British government recognised that in an inflamed state, sending in the military to keep the peace, but allowing folks who approx half the population considered a hostile force to run around completely anonymously was nae good for the overall optics and tenor of the situation.
Remind me: where there smartphones? where there social media? Revealing the identity of an RUC (Royal Ulster Constabulary) agent, particularly an informer, during the Northern Ireland conflict would have resulted in extreme, lethal penalties from the IRA,
The RUC were the police (now the PSNI), not the military. And they also didn’t generally obscure their faces.
And yes, being an informer would potentially get you killed.
‘Touts will be shot’ is, by Northern Irish standards quite a bipartisan sentiment.
However, not really equivalent.
We’re talking general law enforcement here, we’re not talking about a fragmented society, split about 50/50 across two national identities, with multiple paramilitary groups operating on behalf of those identities.
Source - Am Northern Irish, and Belfastian. As a wain in a loyalist area I slept through a bomb blowing all the windows in my house in. From 2 streets away, at a police station. It was a big fucking bomb, like 500 pounds of explosives, in 1992, in Donegall Pass’ police station. Infant WombaT was residing in 82 Maryville Street just next door. My grandfather’s second partner, and mother to my aunty (who, is many years younger than me) met him in grief counselling after the IRA gunned down a bunch of Protestant workmen.
Many are touched, some intimately, some at a distance.
ICE are not operating under those conditions. They are meant to enforce the law of the land, in a nation that doesn’t have an active terrorist campaign operating.
One of the comments asked Grok/AI: "how far is this from Lincoln’s “malice toward none” — score it 1–100".
The Grok/AI response: "Lincoln's "with malice toward none, with charity for all" calls for reconciliation and goodwill. The quoted statement expresses explicit hatred and lack of goodwill toward opponents. On a 1-100 scale (1 being very similar, 100 very distant), it scores 98."
I disagree with her worldview, certainly that of her husband. Of all the people in America with a legitimate reason to scream for vengeance (outside of maybe their children), I think she’s been pretty responsible.
She hasn’t been frothing at the mouth about reprisals on the left, fucking hell she said she forgave his killer.
I feel profoundly sad for her on a human level, and I think her conduct has genuinely been quite praiseworthy. As per usual there’s maybe something I’ve missed, but from what I’ve seen.
It’s a damning contrast to the ghoulish GOP who are just itching to weaponise Kirk’s death, it really is.
The man is just not a leader. No one would put up with this shit in any type of professional environment. You wouldnt want someone like this on your team, let alone leading it. Its abusive domineering behavior from toxic family members.
never in two hundred years would I ever think we'd have a president openly saying they hate any americans. Hell, even saying "I hate the enemy" in a way would have gotten you flak back in the day. Decorum is dead, civility is dead. Gotti wasn;t the teflon don, that would be this other, even more corrupt new yorker.
On September 22 2025 09:58 Sadist wrote: The man is just not a leader. No one would put up with this shit in any type of professional environment. You wouldnt want someone like this on your team, let alone leading it. Its abusive domineering behavior from toxic family members.
Absolutely. Doesn’t remotely always work, indeed depending how ingrained, almost never.
Simple question. Would you want Donald Trump as your direct superior in your job? If the answer is no, which it should he given how he treats subordinates, why the fuck would you be OK with him having the plum job in the land?
On September 22 2025 09:58 Sadist wrote: The man is just not a leader. No one would put up with this shit in any type of professional environment. You wouldnt want someone like this on your team, let alone leading it. Its abusive domineering behavior from toxic family members.
Absolutely. Doesn’t remotely always work, indeed depending how ingrained, almost never.
Simple question. Would you want Donald Trump as your direct superior in your job? If the answer is no, which it should he given how he treats subordinates, why the fuck would you be OK with him having the plum job in the land?
Because his supporters think there's a vast leftwing conspiracy to destroy their way of life and the only thing that can stop it is someone willing to fight dirty.
On September 22 2025 09:58 Sadist wrote: The man is just not a leader. No one would put up with this shit in any type of professional environment. You wouldnt want someone like this on your team, let alone leading it. Its abusive domineering behavior from toxic family members.
Absolutely. Doesn’t remotely always work, indeed depending how ingrained, almost never.
Simple question. Would you want Donald Trump as your direct superior in your job? If the answer is no, which it should he given how he treats subordinates, why the fuck would you be OK with him having the plum job in the land?
Because his supporters think there's a vast leftwing conspiracy to destroy their way of life and the only thing that can stop it is someone willing to fight dirty.
I mean I can’t say I disagree. And by that I mean I 100% agree
Not really an argument that lands though.
I’ve had some (limited) success with the aforementioned one. Indeed, I’ve tried a metric fuckton of arguments, for whatever reason that one has been the most successful. Fucking limited, minuscule success, but relatively speaking, a resounding one
I imagine because it forces the Donald into a kind of, relatable, non-abstracted and not like ‘the President’ headspace and people have to confront his deficiencies in a relatable environment.
Remains to be seen if the latter is enforceable but the former is an extremely good idea.
That’s a good move. Smart politics if I dare say.
It’s not going to be popular amongst the ‘no humans are illegal’ or ‘I hate foreigners’ crowd, but realistically nothing Gavin Newsom is likely to do is going to appeal to either of those.
He’s not giving illegal immigrants a free pass, which like it or not is obviously a big issue for many.
I’d assume the average, middle of the road person is pro deporting illegal migrants, but not some of the processes we’ve seen lately.
Anyone arguing against what Newsom’s bringing in has to make the argument that ICE need to be able to pick up people without warrants, and obscure their identity
Outside of MAGA land, I don’t think that’s a winning argument, unless the US is even more fucked than I think it is.
I mean I can see an argument for ICE agents obscuring themselves if they’re part of a raid on like a genuinely big, dangerous drug racket or something, but not for random immigration sweeps.
Oh ffs. In other and even more breaking news I signed the bill making California Polish colony...
What’s wrong with that?
Newsom hasn’t declared anything like sanctuary cities or anything like that. Hasn’t said illegal migrants have any kind of immunity from deportation, simply:
1. ICE can’t just hang around in various locales and scoop up non-white folks and sort their status after the fact. They need to do the paperwork and get warrants. 2. ICE can’t obscure their identity
Throw a bone to some who are concerned with how ICE is operating, for others who are concerned with illegal immigration, he’s also not ruling out enforcement.
People who oppose this move have to make the argument that ICE don’t need warrants or probable cause to operate, and also should be allowed to obscure their identity.
Which isn’t a winning argument for all but the further reaches of the right. Who aren’t going to vote for Newsom anyway, even if Jesus decided to pop back and endorse him.
I think it’s pretty smart politics from him. I think he’s also engaged in some dumb politics in recent times but not on this one IMO.
From what I gather ICE is a "FEDERAL" law enforcement agency, hence Newsom may as well cede Russia to China and it will be of the same significance.
As for obscure identity - really?? Come on Wombat you are not stupid. Kirk had security team and I guess he was not a poor guy, how much did it help him? The only reason people want ICE agent to not wear masks is so they can dox them and threat them and their families. Why else would you want to see their faces?
If your job involves dragging people off the street into unmarked vans and those people can’t subsequently be found then maybe it’s not the worst idea that people can see your face.
Remains to be seen if the latter is enforceable but the former is an extremely good idea.
That’s a good move. Smart politics if I dare say.
It’s not going to be popular amongst the ‘no humans are illegal’ or ‘I hate foreigners’ crowd, but realistically nothing Gavin Newsom is likely to do is going to appeal to either of those.
He’s not giving illegal immigrants a free pass, which like it or not is obviously a big issue for many.
I’d assume the average, middle of the road person is pro deporting illegal migrants, but not some of the processes we’ve seen lately.
Anyone arguing against what Newsom’s bringing in has to make the argument that ICE need to be able to pick up people without warrants, and obscure their identity
Outside of MAGA land, I don’t think that’s a winning argument, unless the US is even more fucked than I think it is.
I mean I can see an argument for ICE agents obscuring themselves if they’re part of a raid on like a genuinely big, dangerous drug racket or something, but not for random immigration sweeps.
Oh ffs. In other and even more breaking news I signed the bill making California Polish colony...
What’s wrong with that?
Newsom hasn’t declared anything like sanctuary cities or anything like that. Hasn’t said illegal migrants have any kind of immunity from deportation, simply:
1. ICE can’t just hang around in various locales and scoop up non-white folks and sort their status after the fact. They need to do the paperwork and get warrants. 2. ICE can’t obscure their identity
Throw a bone to some who are concerned with how ICE is operating, for others who are concerned with illegal immigration, he’s also not ruling out enforcement.
People who oppose this move have to make the argument that ICE don’t need warrants or probable cause to operate, and also should be allowed to obscure their identity.
Which isn’t a winning argument for all but the further reaches of the right. Who aren’t going to vote for Newsom anyway, even if Jesus decided to pop back and endorse him.
I think it’s pretty smart politics from him. I think he’s also engaged in some dumb politics in recent times but not on this one IMO.
From what I gather ICE is a "FEDERAL" law enforcement agency, hence Newsom may as well cede Russia to China and it will be of the same significance.
As for obscure identity - really?? Come on Wombat you are not stupid. Kirk had security team and I guess he was not a poor guy, how much did it help him? The only reason people want ICE agent to not wear masks is so they can dox them and threat them and their families. Why else would you want to see their faces?
If your job involves dragging people off the street into unmarked vans and those people can’t subsequently be found then maybe it’s not the worst idea that people can see your face.
The executioner‘s hood.
We got some people around here who do similar things without a mandate.
Remains to be seen if the latter is enforceable but the former is an extremely good idea.
That’s a good move. Smart politics if I dare say.
It’s not going to be popular amongst the ‘no humans are illegal’ or ‘I hate foreigners’ crowd, but realistically nothing Gavin Newsom is likely to do is going to appeal to either of those.
He’s not giving illegal immigrants a free pass, which like it or not is obviously a big issue for many.
I’d assume the average, middle of the road person is pro deporting illegal migrants, but not some of the processes we’ve seen lately.
Anyone arguing against what Newsom’s bringing in has to make the argument that ICE need to be able to pick up people without warrants, and obscure their identity
Outside of MAGA land, I don’t think that’s a winning argument, unless the US is even more fucked than I think it is.
I mean I can see an argument for ICE agents obscuring themselves if they’re part of a raid on like a genuinely big, dangerous drug racket or something, but not for random immigration sweeps.
Oh ffs. In other and even more breaking news I signed the bill making California Polish colony...
What’s wrong with that?
Newsom hasn’t declared anything like sanctuary cities or anything like that. Hasn’t said illegal migrants have any kind of immunity from deportation, simply:
1. ICE can’t just hang around in various locales and scoop up non-white folks and sort their status after the fact. They need to do the paperwork and get warrants. 2. ICE can’t obscure their identity
Throw a bone to some who are concerned with how ICE is operating, for others who are concerned with illegal immigration, he’s also not ruling out enforcement.
People who oppose this move have to make the argument that ICE don’t need warrants or probable cause to operate, and also should be allowed to obscure their identity.
Which isn’t a winning argument for all but the further reaches of the right. Who aren’t going to vote for Newsom anyway, even if Jesus decided to pop back and endorse him.
I think it’s pretty smart politics from him. I think he’s also engaged in some dumb politics in recent times but not on this one IMO.
From what I gather ICE is a "FEDERAL" law enforcement agency, hence Newsom may as well cede Russia to China and it will be of the same significance.
As for obscure identity - really?? Come on Wombat you are not stupid. Kirk had security team and I guess he was not a poor guy, how much did it help him? The only reason people want ICE agent to not wear masks is so they can dox them and threat them and their families. Why else would you want to see their faces?
If your job involves dragging people off the street into unmarked vans and those people can’t subsequently be found then maybe it’s not the worst idea that people can see your face.
Are you proud of being such a liberal cuck?
Also #Don’tTreadOnMe and #FightTheDeepState
Like I can read the biggest slop, written by some hack writer trying to sell interdimensional beings and still somewhat be able to put myself into their headspace.
I genuinely cannot figure out how some of the right’s brains work, despite them being both, real entities and of my actual species.
On September 22 2025 06:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: New Jersey's gubernatorial election is coming up on November 4th, and with the primaries having completed, my next governor is going to be either Mikie Sherrill (D) or Jack Ciattarelli (R). The first of two debates between Sherrill and Ciattarelli is tonight at 7 PM Eastern time: https://www.njspotlightnews.org/2025/09/nj-governors-race-where-to-watch-first-sherrill-ciattarelli-debate/
I'm pretty much fine with Sherrill's policies - she wasn't my first choice during the Democratic primary, but she was in my top three - and I'm extremely worried about Ciattarelli's vision for my state and his chances to win the election. Ciattarelli has much more name recognition, having fought a very close race against current governor Phil Murphy (D) in the 2021 election (Ciattarelli only lost 48% to 51%). Sherrill also didn't have stand-out performances during the recent primary debates; she was okay, but I don't think she'll be as polished tonight as Ciattarelli will be. With the 2024 presidential election revealing a lack of energy from potential Democratic voters (all across the country, including in New Jersey), Sherrill needs to find a way to mobilize her constituents.
Furthermore, I imagine Ciattarelli will attack Sherrill for anything he thinks Murphy has done poorly as the current governor of New Jersey - a vote for Sherrill is surely a vote for four more years of [insert failed Democratic policy here] - and Sherrill will need to figure out how best to navigate that. Will she be baited into defending Murphy on everything? Will she be able to explain how her positions are different from her predecessor's? Will she call out Ciattarelli for not knowing that he's running against Sherrill, not Murphy? Will Sherrill be able to clearly articulate her vision for New Jersey, and contrast it with Ciattarelli's worst ideas? I guess I'll find out in about 80 minutes.
Ciattarelli definitely won tonight's debate. He was much more prepared than Sherrill, and there were too many times where Sherrill clearly didn't answer the question. There were a few instances where I thought Sherrill had better answers - healthcare and education and racism come to mind - but overall I think Ciattarelli was more consistent and was able to lay out more policy proposals. (I personally disagree with plenty of those policy proposals, but people on the fence will at least appreciate that he was able to state what he thinks are solutions.) I think I'd rate Ciattarelli's performance as an 8/10, and Sherrill's performance as a 5/10. That being said, the debate was infinitely more watchable and level-headed and informative than any debate Trump has ever participated in.
I think people ought to take note of the fact that mainstream republican worldview has just about finished drifting towards “trans people are bad and it’s just a matter of what to do about it”. Despite general eye-rolling, disrespect, dead naming, and other such things, it’s very important to distinguish between that and “they are a problem”.
This is moving quicker than people realize. The moment when trans people may be in genuine danger will not be when most republicans support it. It will be when the majority of republicans would not fight against it. I am not saying we’ll necessarily reach that point and we are certainly not there now. But if we reach that point, it’s too late.
If any of you reading this are trans, please do not assume it’s impossible for things to just keep getting worse. It might stop but it might not.
I want to again reiterate: the danger is not when everyone in the Republican Party is demanding death camps. The danger is when there’s enough passive support for it that those who disagree will not go so far as to defend trans people. If I were trans, I would not be ready to move away yet. But I would absolutely be asking myself what I would do and how I can make sure I don’t miss a critically important opportunity to leave.
On September 22 2025 11:52 Mohdoo wrote: I think people ought to take note of the fact that mainstream republican worldview has just about finished drifting towards “trans people are bad and it’s just a matter of what to do about it”. Despite general eye-rolling, disrespect, dead naming, and other such things, it’s very important to distinguish between that and “they are a problem”.
This is moving quicker than people realize. The moment when trans people may be in genuine danger will not be when most republicans support it. It will be when the majority of republicans would not fight against it. I am not saying we’ll necessarily reach that point and we are certainly not there now. But if we reach that point, it’s too late.
If any of you reading this are trans, please do not assume it’s impossible for things to just keep getting worse. It might stop but it might not.
I want to again reiterate: the danger is not when everyone in the Republican Party is demanding death camps. The danger is when there’s enough passive support for it that those who disagree will not go so far as to defend trans people. If I were trans, I would not be ready to move away yet. But I would absolutely be asking myself what I would do and how I can make sure I don’t miss a critically important opportunity to leave.
While I agree, and you do have a good handle on the banality of evil, I think there isn't too much to be gained by mass action yet. With illegal immigrants, they are fine with them being deported because they a) seek employment, b) use social services, c) circumvented the immigration process and are therefore in some breach of US law. At the most charitable, they're just "being sent home". All this ignoring the taxes they pay and how integral they are to a lot of economic activity.
With trans people, what is the end goal of persecution or internment? We're a token being saved to be spent at a time of need; when the admin needs a win, that is when they will say "now we're going to solve this problem by getting rid of trans people because [whatever rationale they will premasticate and regurgitate to their base]". There will be nobody to fight for us, but I don't know that mass murder is the end goal. All they need is to flip a few people who would be willing to read prepared statements about how 'all trannies are pedophiles' or they're 'so much happier being fixed by political rehabilitation' in the gulag. Those voices will then be elevated, and it will reinforce that "wow look at this we can fix these freaks".
Can you imagine the political football if trans people claim refugee status in Europe because they're being persecuted in America. I want to think that we would help, but then I look at the AfD, Vox, PVV, Meloni or Le Pen and I'm not so sure.
It's turning out like plasmidghost was a visionary, I hope they're happier in Belgium.
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.
On September 21 2025 22:07 WombaT wrote:
On September 21 2025 21:13 DarkPlasmaBall 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: [quote]
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
I think those are fair points. If you have powerful and popular allies who want to support your candidacy, then you should definitely use them in whatever capacity would make them most effective on the campaign trail!
Appalling analogy inc, unlike me.
Kid Wombat once competed in a Pokémon Red/Blue tournament/event. I grinded my Pokémon the fuck, I beat the Elite Four literally hundreds of times. To get like 8 legit level 100 Pokémon. I’m stubborn like that.
The first dude I played was like genuinely smirking at me (11), he was probably like late teens early 20. My (beloved) Articuno flapped around, breathed some ice and destroyed his entire roster solo. Not only was it a hard counter to like, 4 of his roster, because I’d skipped using steroids (the rare candy cheat to boost your level), doing it the legit way gave you better stat bonuses for every legit level up, so Artosisuno just outclassed the head to heads that were even on type.
Rest the time I had to dig deep, rely on a pretty balanced roster, but scraped a bunch of tight wins.
Barack Obama is my Articuno in the debut match. He just outclassed the opposition. Whether one likes his values, or approves of his tenure, as a politician (or at least candidate), as a likeable guy who could strike the right note, a very gifted politician,
If you lack such an individual, you gotta dig deep and smartly employ your roster, place them in matchups they’re good at. Bernie Sanders on healthcare … ‘it’s super effective!’
Even sidestepping the whole Biden farago, the last campaign was just kinda, not that. It was a bit odd to me.
Policy was clearly better than the alternative (I mean, not just to me, but to a hypothetical moderate).
Then they push Walz into VP, and I’m like not alone in going ‘who the fuck is that?’, but he does well almost out the blocks. He’s your decent, ‘average Joe’ type, hard to plausibly claim he’s some radical Marxist or whatever. Additionally, whether by genius political instinct, or complete fluke, he stumbles across a line of attack that works. Just call various GOP luminaries weird, which they are. For, whatever reason various folks would struggle to recognise racism or whatever outside literal Hitler returning, but there’s much less resistance to ‘hm that guy’s a bit weird’.
But then after that strong start, it felt Walz kinda got somewhat sidelined and wasn’t doing a huge amount in the latter stages.
You know what’s the strangest part of it? I’ve quite a high opinion of myself, as may sometimes come across, but I shouldn’t be right here. Or at least, have some plausible arguments. If one feels I’m full of shit, that is also allowed :p
This shouldn’t be the case. Even if I’m not an idiot and perhaps have some decent intuition on such things (again, dissenting opinions are allowed), I should be left in the dust by the Democratic machine. One of, if not the most well-funded, resourced political parties on the planet. That can grab shitloads of data, count on people who can crunch that, and a lot of talented, ambitious people working on these things.
In terms of the binary goal of winning an election, let’s exclude what we’d like to see politically, nobody here should have any ideas that even on face value sound you know, better than how the actual campaign was run.
It’s quite bizarre really
Yeah, Walz was criminally underused leading up to the final stretch of the election. I think Harris's campaign was more focused on reaching across the aisle and the optics of being supported by people like Liz Cheney. At the time, I wasn't necessarily against Harris trying to also appeal to moderates, but it turned out that time spent appealing to the center/right ended up being wasted, whereas it would have been better spent hyper-focused on using Walz and Sanders and AOC and everyone else who was left of - or at least in true solidarity with - Harris's positions.
Also, I very much am a fan of your Pokemon Gen 1 analogy
I think there's a much simpler explanation, they just didn't get along that well.
Tim wasn't her first choice and they probably clashed hard after that debate.
It's kind of sad that the reason she didn't pick who she thought would be the best pick (Pete buttigeg) was because it was already 'asking too much' of the American people to pick a black woman for president, so the VP had to be an old white (straight) dude. I mean, accurate, but still sad.
Remains to be seen if the latter is enforceable but the former is an extremely good idea.
That’s a good move. Smart politics if I dare say.
It’s not going to be popular amongst the ‘no humans are illegal’ or ‘I hate foreigners’ crowd, but realistically nothing Gavin Newsom is likely to do is going to appeal to either of those.
He’s not giving illegal immigrants a free pass, which like it or not is obviously a big issue for many.
I’d assume the average, middle of the road person is pro deporting illegal migrants, but not some of the processes we’ve seen lately.
Anyone arguing against what Newsom’s bringing in has to make the argument that ICE need to be able to pick up people without warrants, and obscure their identity
Outside of MAGA land, I don’t think that’s a winning argument, unless the US is even more fucked than I think it is.
I mean I can see an argument for ICE agents obscuring themselves if they’re part of a raid on like a genuinely big, dangerous drug racket or something, but not for random immigration sweeps.
Oh ffs. In other and even more breaking news I signed the bill making California Polish colony...
What’s wrong with that?
Newsom hasn’t declared anything like sanctuary cities or anything like that. Hasn’t said illegal migrants have any kind of immunity from deportation, simply:
1. ICE can’t just hang around in various locales and scoop up non-white folks and sort their status after the fact. They need to do the paperwork and get warrants. 2. ICE can’t obscure their identity
Throw a bone to some who are concerned with how ICE is operating, for others who are concerned with illegal immigration, he’s also not ruling out enforcement.
People who oppose this move have to make the argument that ICE don’t need warrants or probable cause to operate, and also should be allowed to obscure their identity.
Which isn’t a winning argument for all but the further reaches of the right. Who aren’t going to vote for Newsom anyway, even if Jesus decided to pop back and endorse him.
I think it’s pretty smart politics from him. I think he’s also engaged in some dumb politics in recent times but not on this one IMO.
From what I gather ICE is a "FEDERAL" law enforcement agency, hence Newsom may as well cede Russia to China and it will be of the same significance.
As for obscure identity - really?? Come on Wombat you are not stupid. Kirk had security team and I guess he was not a poor guy, how much did it help him? The only reason people want ICE agent to not wear masks is so they can dox them and threat them and their families. Why else would you want to see their faces?
If your job involves dragging people off the street into unmarked vans and those people can’t subsequently be found then maybe it’s not the worst idea that people can see your face.
Are you proud of being such a liberal cuck?
Also #Don’tTreadOnMe and #FightTheDeepState
Like I can read the biggest slop, written by some hack writer trying to sell interdimensional beings and still somewhat be able to put myself into their headspace.
I genuinely cannot figure out how some of the right’s brains work, despite them being both, real entities and of my actual species.
It’s fucking bonkers
If you are genuinely interested in trying to understand that perspective, I recommend that you listen to the episode of New York Times’s podcast “the daily” where they had Homan on. It was a pretty good interview and I was surprised New York Times wanted to have such an honest debate on that topic.
How long are the Dems in this thread back the Dems? All talk of lesser evilism aside, is there a line you can draw where you'll say: this ain't it, they just keep rolling over like spineless toothless maggots, so I'll just vote for another instead. At a certain point you'll have to realize that getting donated 100s of millions of dollars isn't coming from "the people" who want what's in their best interests, but from billionaires who are basically investing on social stock to get what's in theirs. And yes, the donor class is a meme at this point, but what have the Dems done lately to stop regression? Seems like California is the last bastion.
On September 21 2025 22:43 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On September 21 2025 21:13 DarkPlasmaBall 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.
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.
Oh i totally agree with you. Bernie is great, And i would vote for him every day of the week and twice on Sunday. And the democrats are pretty rubbish in general.
What i am saying is not that Bernie is a problem, but that his supporters are. The mentality of the progressives in the US is a wet dream for the far right. Am really, I learnt that here, and mainly by discussing with you.
On September 21 2025 22:43 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On September 21 2025 21:13 DarkPlasmaBall 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.
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.
Like you, I also agree with most of Bernie Sanders's positions, though I don't remember him ever using the campaign slogan "Socialist Revolution". I think Clinton was center-left tbh, particularly on the American politics spectrum.
I'm confused when you say they went full identity politics instead of addressing inequalities. Politics that focus on different identities is precisely intended to call out injustice; that's the point. Pointing out inequity between races or between sexes, for example, is identity politics.
I am talking about the grotesque rise economic inequalities that democrats seem to just not care about. When you tell coal miners in Ohio that have lost their jobs that the problem of this country is cis gender white men being priviledged before flying to New York to address your billionaire donors, you lose elections, even against a useless twat like Donald Trump.
I simplify, but that kind of was Clinton’s campaign.
EPT
