|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On November 18 2025 05:01 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2025 04:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 18 2025 02:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 18 2025 01:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 18 2025 01:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 18 2025 01:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 18 2025 00:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 17 2025 23:29 Uldridge wrote:
If the Epstein files have nothing though, the Dems are doomed and Trump becomes untoucheable. What do you mean? Nothing's gonna change either way, even if the Epstein files are completely about Trump being an immoral monster. The Democrats giving in to the Republicans during the government shutdown was way worse off for Democrats (and the American people) than anything that could be in the Epstein files. Separate from anything related to Epstein, we already know that Trump raped people, preyed on children, committed nearly a hundred crimes, and is a fascist and racist and sexist and terrible human being, yet he still has a large amount of support from Republicans. Epstein won't change or add anything significant. "Dems are doomed" is the takeaway there I think. Epstein files are a sort of "last gasp" in a painfully long agonal breathing fit. This does feel a bit like the Mueller kabuki/WWE to me. I can see the parallels there, yeah. The Mueller report led to dozens of indictments, established significant Russian interference, and even identified 10 ways that Trump personally obstructed justice, yet Trump never really experienced serious consequences. Same goes for his 34 felony convictions or his total of 88 criminal charges or his bragging about preying on children or sexually assaulting women. Doing illegal and immoral things hasn't ever stopped Trump before, so why should this be any different? Dems are wrong if they think Trump will eventually be toppled by the Epstein files; Dems should instead be energizing and galvanizing the left instead of trying to convince the right that they're gullible cult followers. Hell yeah, better late than never! Can we turn that into a reasonable metric for primaries in 2026 and beyond? That works for me, for both the primary elections and the general elections. Hopefully Trump doesn't decide to run for a third term, so I would implore Dems to focus less on him (the past/present) and focus more on the future. I also hope they make a concerted effort to outline a helpful, positive, pro-left agenda (similar to Mamdani and Sanders), as opposed to running a campaign that's just anti-right / anti-Republican (even as many Democrats still ultimately run against MAGA Republicans). I'd go so far as to say that even when running against an incumbent (either for Congress or for the presidency), the messaging should still be at least mostly positive and mostly aimed towards things you want to implement and improve, as opposed to having mostly anti-opposition messaging. I think you misunderstand. I'm asking if we can turn your assertion that Dems should instead be energizing and galvanizing the left instead of trying to convince the right that they're gullible cult followers into a metric for who to primary in 2026. As in, can we look at who is doing which and use that as a reasonable metric to determine which Democrats need to be primaried in 2026? I'm also curious if you (or any Democrat supporters) can identify any Democrats that need to be primaried in 2026 based on that or any other metric? Why do you want to primary them? Do you want to do so because you think it’ll make a vaguely similar platform win with a better quality of candidate, or do you want a completely different platform that you think can also win and is a better platform? Those are good questions for DPB and other people who believe it is a viable strategy moving forward. I look forward to seeing their answers...
On November 18 2025 05:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2025 04:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 18 2025 02:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 18 2025 01:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 18 2025 01:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 18 2025 01:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 18 2025 00:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 17 2025 23:29 Uldridge wrote:
If the Epstein files have nothing though, the Dems are doomed and Trump becomes untoucheable. What do you mean? Nothing's gonna change either way, even if the Epstein files are completely about Trump being an immoral monster. The Democrats giving in to the Republicans during the government shutdown was way worse off for Democrats (and the American people) than anything that could be in the Epstein files. Separate from anything related to Epstein, we already know that Trump raped people, preyed on children, committed nearly a hundred crimes, and is a fascist and racist and sexist and terrible human being, yet he still has a large amount of support from Republicans. Epstein won't change or add anything significant. "Dems are doomed" is the takeaway there I think. Epstein files are a sort of "last gasp" in a painfully long agonal breathing fit. This does feel a bit like the Mueller kabuki/WWE to me. I can see the parallels there, yeah. The Mueller report led to dozens of indictments, established significant Russian interference, and even identified 10 ways that Trump personally obstructed justice, yet Trump never really experienced serious consequences. Same goes for his 34 felony convictions or his total of 88 criminal charges or his bragging about preying on children or sexually assaulting women. Doing illegal and immoral things hasn't ever stopped Trump before, so why should this be any different? Dems are wrong if they think Trump will eventually be toppled by the Epstein files; Dems should instead be energizing and galvanizing the left instead of trying to convince the right that they're gullible cult followers. Hell yeah, better late than never! Can we turn that into a reasonable metric for primaries in 2026 and beyond? That works for me, for both the primary elections and the general elections. Hopefully Trump doesn't decide to run for a third term, so I would implore Dems to focus less on him (the past/present) and focus more on the future. I also hope they make a concerted effort to outline a helpful, positive, pro-left agenda (similar to Mamdani and Sanders), as opposed to running a campaign that's just anti-right / anti-Republican (even as many Democrats still ultimately run against MAGA Republicans). I'd go so far as to say that even when running against an incumbent (either for Congress or for the presidency), the messaging should still be at least mostly positive and mostly aimed towards things you want to implement and improve, as opposed to having mostly anti-opposition messaging. I think you misunderstand. I'm asking if we can turn your assertion that Dems should instead be energizing and galvanizing the left instead of trying to convince the right that they're gullible cult followers into a metric for who to primary in 2026. As in, can we look at who is doing which and use that as a reasonable metric to determine which Democrats need to be primaried in 2026? I'm also curious if you (or any Democrat supporters) can identify any Democrats that need to be primaried in 2026 based on that or any other metric? + Show Spoiler +Yes, I think we can use it as a metric for who to primary in 2026. In my opinion, just because a seat is already blue doesn't mean it can't be a better version of blue. I hope that more left-wing progressive politicians are willing to challenge moderate-left incumbents, and if that happens in elections that I can vote in, I'll happily support those further-left progressive challengers. I don't have the time or bandwidth right now to look into future seats that I hope will soon be challenged + Show Spoiler +during the next election cycle, but when they do happen in spaces where I can vote (local, state, national), I pay attention to who's running and try to help whoever I consider to be the best option.
You're not alone. Which is a major contributor to why it doesn't happen/hasn't happened often enough to work at scale. It takes people like you (who already spend more time and bandwidth than most investigating and discussing politics) making time and bandwidth for it.
It's also part of why I've been asking you about Booker. How does he score on your metrics for if he needs to be primaried or not? Your metrics are pretty useless/hopeless if you can't/refuse to apply them to your own Senator in 2026.
Otherwise it's basically just another iteration of the hollow/useless rhetoric I described before
|
Northern Ireland26058 Posts
On November 18 2025 06:03 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2025 05:01 WombaT wrote:On November 18 2025 04:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 18 2025 02:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 18 2025 01:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 18 2025 01:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 18 2025 01:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 18 2025 00:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 17 2025 23:29 Uldridge wrote:
If the Epstein files have nothing though, the Dems are doomed and Trump becomes untoucheable. What do you mean? Nothing's gonna change either way, even if the Epstein files are completely about Trump being an immoral monster. The Democrats giving in to the Republicans during the government shutdown was way worse off for Democrats (and the American people) than anything that could be in the Epstein files. Separate from anything related to Epstein, we already know that Trump raped people, preyed on children, committed nearly a hundred crimes, and is a fascist and racist and sexist and terrible human being, yet he still has a large amount of support from Republicans. Epstein won't change or add anything significant. "Dems are doomed" is the takeaway there I think. Epstein files are a sort of "last gasp" in a painfully long agonal breathing fit. This does feel a bit like the Mueller kabuki/WWE to me. I can see the parallels there, yeah. The Mueller report led to dozens of indictments, established significant Russian interference, and even identified 10 ways that Trump personally obstructed justice, yet Trump never really experienced serious consequences. Same goes for his 34 felony convictions or his total of 88 criminal charges or his bragging about preying on children or sexually assaulting women. Doing illegal and immoral things hasn't ever stopped Trump before, so why should this be any different? Dems are wrong if they think Trump will eventually be toppled by the Epstein files; Dems should instead be energizing and galvanizing the left instead of trying to convince the right that they're gullible cult followers. Hell yeah, better late than never! Can we turn that into a reasonable metric for primaries in 2026 and beyond? That works for me, for both the primary elections and the general elections. Hopefully Trump doesn't decide to run for a third term, so I would implore Dems to focus less on him (the past/present) and focus more on the future. I also hope they make a concerted effort to outline a helpful, positive, pro-left agenda (similar to Mamdani and Sanders), as opposed to running a campaign that's just anti-right / anti-Republican (even as many Democrats still ultimately run against MAGA Republicans). I'd go so far as to say that even when running against an incumbent (either for Congress or for the presidency), the messaging should still be at least mostly positive and mostly aimed towards things you want to implement and improve, as opposed to having mostly anti-opposition messaging. I think you misunderstand. I'm asking if we can turn your assertion that Dems should instead be energizing and galvanizing the left instead of trying to convince the right that they're gullible cult followers into a metric for who to primary in 2026. As in, can we look at who is doing which and use that as a reasonable metric to determine which Democrats need to be primaried in 2026? I'm also curious if you (or any Democrat supporters) can identify any Democrats that need to be primaried in 2026 based on that or any other metric? Why do you want to primary them? Do you want to do so because you think it’ll make a vaguely similar platform win with a better quality of candidate, or do you want a completely different platform that you think can also win and is a better platform? Those are good questions for DPB and other people who believe it is a viable strategy moving forward. I look forward to seeing their answers... Show nested quote +On November 18 2025 05:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 18 2025 04:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 18 2025 02:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 18 2025 01:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 18 2025 01:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 18 2025 01:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 18 2025 00:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 17 2025 23:29 Uldridge wrote:
If the Epstein files have nothing though, the Dems are doomed and Trump becomes untoucheable. What do you mean? Nothing's gonna change either way, even if the Epstein files are completely about Trump being an immoral monster. The Democrats giving in to the Republicans during the government shutdown was way worse off for Democrats (and the American people) than anything that could be in the Epstein files. Separate from anything related to Epstein, we already know that Trump raped people, preyed on children, committed nearly a hundred crimes, and is a fascist and racist and sexist and terrible human being, yet he still has a large amount of support from Republicans. Epstein won't change or add anything significant. "Dems are doomed" is the takeaway there I think. Epstein files are a sort of "last gasp" in a painfully long agonal breathing fit. This does feel a bit like the Mueller kabuki/WWE to me. I can see the parallels there, yeah. The Mueller report led to dozens of indictments, established significant Russian interference, and even identified 10 ways that Trump personally obstructed justice, yet Trump never really experienced serious consequences. Same goes for his 34 felony convictions or his total of 88 criminal charges or his bragging about preying on children or sexually assaulting women. Doing illegal and immoral things hasn't ever stopped Trump before, so why should this be any different? Dems are wrong if they think Trump will eventually be toppled by the Epstein files; Dems should instead be energizing and galvanizing the left instead of trying to convince the right that they're gullible cult followers. Hell yeah, better late than never! Can we turn that into a reasonable metric for primaries in 2026 and beyond? That works for me, for both the primary elections and the general elections. Hopefully Trump doesn't decide to run for a third term, so I would implore Dems to focus less on him (the past/present) and focus more on the future. I also hope they make a concerted effort to outline a helpful, positive, pro-left agenda (similar to Mamdani and Sanders), as opposed to running a campaign that's just anti-right / anti-Republican (even as many Democrats still ultimately run against MAGA Republicans). I'd go so far as to say that even when running against an incumbent (either for Congress or for the presidency), the messaging should still be at least mostly positive and mostly aimed towards things you want to implement and improve, as opposed to having mostly anti-opposition messaging. I think you misunderstand. I'm asking if we can turn your assertion that Dems should instead be energizing and galvanizing the left instead of trying to convince the right that they're gullible cult followers into a metric for who to primary in 2026. As in, can we look at who is doing which and use that as a reasonable metric to determine which Democrats need to be primaried in 2026? I'm also curious if you (or any Democrat supporters) can identify any Democrats that need to be primaried in 2026 based on that or any other metric? + Show Spoiler +Yes, I think we can use it as a metric for who to primary in 2026. In my opinion, just because a seat is already blue doesn't mean it can't be a better version of blue. I hope that more left-wing progressive politicians are willing to challenge moderate-left incumbents, and if that happens in elections that I can vote in, I'll happily support those further-left progressive challengers. I don't have the time or bandwidth right now to look into future seats that I hope will soon be challenged + Show Spoiler +during the next election cycle, but when they do happen in spaces where I can vote (local, state, national), I pay attention to who's running and try to help whoever I consider to be the best option. You're not alone. Which is a major contributor to why it doesn't happen/hasn't happened often enough to work at scale. It takes people like you (who already spend more time and bandwidth than most investigating and discussing politics) making time and bandwidth for it. It's also part of why I've been asking you about Booker. How does he score on your metrics for if he needs to be primaried or not? Your metrics are pretty useless/hopeless if you can't/refuse to apply them to your own Senator in 2026. Otherwise it's basically just another iteration of the hollow/useless rhetoric I described before
So are you involved in finding new homes for homeless trans teenagers in Trump’s America or not?
|
On November 18 2025 06:07 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2025 06:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 18 2025 05:01 WombaT wrote:On November 18 2025 04:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 18 2025 02:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 18 2025 01:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 18 2025 01:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 18 2025 01:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 18 2025 00:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 17 2025 23:29 Uldridge wrote:
If the Epstein files have nothing though, the Dems are doomed and Trump becomes untoucheable. What do you mean? Nothing's gonna change either way, even if the Epstein files are completely about Trump being an immoral monster. The Democrats giving in to the Republicans during the government shutdown was way worse off for Democrats (and the American people) than anything that could be in the Epstein files. Separate from anything related to Epstein, we already know that Trump raped people, preyed on children, committed nearly a hundred crimes, and is a fascist and racist and sexist and terrible human being, yet he still has a large amount of support from Republicans. Epstein won't change or add anything significant. "Dems are doomed" is the takeaway there I think. Epstein files are a sort of "last gasp" in a painfully long agonal breathing fit. This does feel a bit like the Mueller kabuki/WWE to me. I can see the parallels there, yeah. The Mueller report led to dozens of indictments, established significant Russian interference, and even identified 10 ways that Trump personally obstructed justice, yet Trump never really experienced serious consequences. Same goes for his 34 felony convictions or his total of 88 criminal charges or his bragging about preying on children or sexually assaulting women. Doing illegal and immoral things hasn't ever stopped Trump before, so why should this be any different? Dems are wrong if they think Trump will eventually be toppled by the Epstein files; Dems should instead be energizing and galvanizing the left instead of trying to convince the right that they're gullible cult followers. Hell yeah, better late than never! Can we turn that into a reasonable metric for primaries in 2026 and beyond? That works for me, for both the primary elections and the general elections. Hopefully Trump doesn't decide to run for a third term, so I would implore Dems to focus less on him (the past/present) and focus more on the future. I also hope they make a concerted effort to outline a helpful, positive, pro-left agenda (similar to Mamdani and Sanders), as opposed to running a campaign that's just anti-right / anti-Republican (even as many Democrats still ultimately run against MAGA Republicans). I'd go so far as to say that even when running against an incumbent (either for Congress or for the presidency), the messaging should still be at least mostly positive and mostly aimed towards things you want to implement and improve, as opposed to having mostly anti-opposition messaging. I think you misunderstand. I'm asking if we can turn your assertion that Dems should instead be energizing and galvanizing the left instead of trying to convince the right that they're gullible cult followers into a metric for who to primary in 2026. As in, can we look at who is doing which and use that as a reasonable metric to determine which Democrats need to be primaried in 2026? I'm also curious if you (or any Democrat supporters) can identify any Democrats that need to be primaried in 2026 based on that or any other metric? Why do you want to primary them? Do you want to do so because you think it’ll make a vaguely similar platform win with a better quality of candidate, or do you want a completely different platform that you think can also win and is a better platform? Those are good questions for DPB and other people who believe it is a viable strategy moving forward. I look forward to seeing their answers... On November 18 2025 05:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 18 2025 04:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 18 2025 02:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 18 2025 01:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 18 2025 01:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 18 2025 01:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 18 2025 00:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 17 2025 23:29 Uldridge wrote:
If the Epstein files have nothing though, the Dems are doomed and Trump becomes untoucheable. What do you mean? Nothing's gonna change either way, even if the Epstein files are completely about Trump being an immoral monster. The Democrats giving in to the Republicans during the government shutdown was way worse off for Democrats (and the American people) than anything that could be in the Epstein files. Separate from anything related to Epstein, we already know that Trump raped people, preyed on children, committed nearly a hundred crimes, and is a fascist and racist and sexist and terrible human being, yet he still has a large amount of support from Republicans. Epstein won't change or add anything significant. "Dems are doomed" is the takeaway there I think. Epstein files are a sort of "last gasp" in a painfully long agonal breathing fit. This does feel a bit like the Mueller kabuki/WWE to me. I can see the parallels there, yeah. The Mueller report led to dozens of indictments, established significant Russian interference, and even identified 10 ways that Trump personally obstructed justice, yet Trump never really experienced serious consequences. Same goes for his 34 felony convictions or his total of 88 criminal charges or his bragging about preying on children or sexually assaulting women. Doing illegal and immoral things hasn't ever stopped Trump before, so why should this be any different? Dems are wrong if they think Trump will eventually be toppled by the Epstein files; Dems should instead be energizing and galvanizing the left instead of trying to convince the right that they're gullible cult followers. Hell yeah, better late than never! Can we turn that into a reasonable metric for primaries in 2026 and beyond? That works for me, for both the primary elections and the general elections. Hopefully Trump doesn't decide to run for a third term, so I would implore Dems to focus less on him (the past/present) and focus more on the future. I also hope they make a concerted effort to outline a helpful, positive, pro-left agenda (similar to Mamdani and Sanders), as opposed to running a campaign that's just anti-right / anti-Republican (even as many Democrats still ultimately run against MAGA Republicans). I'd go so far as to say that even when running against an incumbent (either for Congress or for the presidency), the messaging should still be at least mostly positive and mostly aimed towards things you want to implement and improve, as opposed to having mostly anti-opposition messaging. I think you misunderstand. I'm asking if we can turn your assertion that Dems should instead be energizing and galvanizing the left instead of trying to convince the right that they're gullible cult followers into a metric for who to primary in 2026. As in, can we look at who is doing which and use that as a reasonable metric to determine which Democrats need to be primaried in 2026? I'm also curious if you (or any Democrat supporters) can identify any Democrats that need to be primaried in 2026 based on that or any other metric? + Show Spoiler +Yes, I think we can use it as a metric for who to primary in 2026. In my opinion, just because a seat is already blue doesn't mean it can't be a better version of blue. I hope that more left-wing progressive politicians are willing to challenge moderate-left incumbents, and if that happens in elections that I can vote in, I'll happily support those further-left progressive challengers. I don't have the time or bandwidth right now to look into future seats that I hope will soon be challenged + Show Spoiler +during the next election cycle, but when they do happen in spaces where I can vote (local, state, national), I pay attention to who's running and try to help whoever I consider to be the best option. You're not alone. Which is a major contributor to why it doesn't happen/hasn't happened often enough to work at scale. It takes people like you (who already spend more time and bandwidth than most investigating and discussing politics) making time and bandwidth for it. It's also part of why I've been asking you about Booker. How does he score on your metrics for if he needs to be primaried or not? Your metrics are pretty useless/hopeless if you can't/refuse to apply them to your own Senator in 2026. Otherwise it's basically just another iteration of the hollow/useless rhetoric I described before So are you involved in finding new homes for homeless trans teenagers in Trump’s America or not?
Me being involved in asking about homes for them is why you're asking me, isn't it?
Also, yes. It's among the endeavors the orgs I'm involved with work on. It's been a long slog. Especially when one considers that during the 2016 Democrat state convention I attended, we couldn't get Democrats to agree on trans women being recognized as women when it came to their existing gender distribution rules for leadership (I did help win that fight at the district level fwiw).
|
On November 18 2025 06:03 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2025 05:01 WombaT wrote:On November 18 2025 04:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 18 2025 02:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 18 2025 01:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 18 2025 01:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 18 2025 01:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 18 2025 00:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 17 2025 23:29 Uldridge wrote:
If the Epstein files have nothing though, the Dems are doomed and Trump becomes untoucheable. What do you mean? Nothing's gonna change either way, even if the Epstein files are completely about Trump being an immoral monster. The Democrats giving in to the Republicans during the government shutdown was way worse off for Democrats (and the American people) than anything that could be in the Epstein files. Separate from anything related to Epstein, we already know that Trump raped people, preyed on children, committed nearly a hundred crimes, and is a fascist and racist and sexist and terrible human being, yet he still has a large amount of support from Republicans. Epstein won't change or add anything significant. "Dems are doomed" is the takeaway there I think. Epstein files are a sort of "last gasp" in a painfully long agonal breathing fit. This does feel a bit like the Mueller kabuki/WWE to me. I can see the parallels there, yeah. The Mueller report led to dozens of indictments, established significant Russian interference, and even identified 10 ways that Trump personally obstructed justice, yet Trump never really experienced serious consequences. Same goes for his 34 felony convictions or his total of 88 criminal charges or his bragging about preying on children or sexually assaulting women. Doing illegal and immoral things hasn't ever stopped Trump before, so why should this be any different? Dems are wrong if they think Trump will eventually be toppled by the Epstein files; Dems should instead be energizing and galvanizing the left instead of trying to convince the right that they're gullible cult followers. Hell yeah, better late than never! Can we turn that into a reasonable metric for primaries in 2026 and beyond? That works for me, for both the primary elections and the general elections. Hopefully Trump doesn't decide to run for a third term, so I would implore Dems to focus less on him (the past/present) and focus more on the future. I also hope they make a concerted effort to outline a helpful, positive, pro-left agenda (similar to Mamdani and Sanders), as opposed to running a campaign that's just anti-right / anti-Republican (even as many Democrats still ultimately run against MAGA Republicans). I'd go so far as to say that even when running against an incumbent (either for Congress or for the presidency), the messaging should still be at least mostly positive and mostly aimed towards things you want to implement and improve, as opposed to having mostly anti-opposition messaging. I think you misunderstand. I'm asking if we can turn your assertion that Dems should instead be energizing and galvanizing the left instead of trying to convince the right that they're gullible cult followers into a metric for who to primary in 2026. As in, can we look at who is doing which and use that as a reasonable metric to determine which Democrats need to be primaried in 2026? I'm also curious if you (or any Democrat supporters) can identify any Democrats that need to be primaried in 2026 based on that or any other metric? Why do you want to primary them? Do you want to do so because you think it’ll make a vaguely similar platform win with a better quality of candidate, or do you want a completely different platform that you think can also win and is a better platform? Those are good questions for DPB and other people who believe it is a viable strategy moving forward. I look forward to seeing their answers... Show nested quote +On November 18 2025 05:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 18 2025 04:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 18 2025 02:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 18 2025 01:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 18 2025 01:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 18 2025 01:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 18 2025 00:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 17 2025 23:29 Uldridge wrote:
If the Epstein files have nothing though, the Dems are doomed and Trump becomes untoucheable. What do you mean? Nothing's gonna change either way, even if the Epstein files are completely about Trump being an immoral monster. The Democrats giving in to the Republicans during the government shutdown was way worse off for Democrats (and the American people) than anything that could be in the Epstein files. Separate from anything related to Epstein, we already know that Trump raped people, preyed on children, committed nearly a hundred crimes, and is a fascist and racist and sexist and terrible human being, yet he still has a large amount of support from Republicans. Epstein won't change or add anything significant. "Dems are doomed" is the takeaway there I think. Epstein files are a sort of "last gasp" in a painfully long agonal breathing fit. This does feel a bit like the Mueller kabuki/WWE to me. I can see the parallels there, yeah. The Mueller report led to dozens of indictments, established significant Russian interference, and even identified 10 ways that Trump personally obstructed justice, yet Trump never really experienced serious consequences. Same goes for his 34 felony convictions or his total of 88 criminal charges or his bragging about preying on children or sexually assaulting women. Doing illegal and immoral things hasn't ever stopped Trump before, so why should this be any different? Dems are wrong if they think Trump will eventually be toppled by the Epstein files; Dems should instead be energizing and galvanizing the left instead of trying to convince the right that they're gullible cult followers. Hell yeah, better late than never! Can we turn that into a reasonable metric for primaries in 2026 and beyond? That works for me, for both the primary elections and the general elections. Hopefully Trump doesn't decide to run for a third term, so I would implore Dems to focus less on him (the past/present) and focus more on the future. I also hope they make a concerted effort to outline a helpful, positive, pro-left agenda (similar to Mamdani and Sanders), as opposed to running a campaign that's just anti-right / anti-Republican (even as many Democrats still ultimately run against MAGA Republicans). I'd go so far as to say that even when running against an incumbent (either for Congress or for the presidency), the messaging should still be at least mostly positive and mostly aimed towards things you want to implement and improve, as opposed to having mostly anti-opposition messaging. I think you misunderstand. I'm asking if we can turn your assertion that Dems should instead be energizing and galvanizing the left instead of trying to convince the right that they're gullible cult followers into a metric for who to primary in 2026. As in, can we look at who is doing which and use that as a reasonable metric to determine which Democrats need to be primaried in 2026? I'm also curious if you (or any Democrat supporters) can identify any Democrats that need to be primaried in 2026 based on that or any other metric? + Show Spoiler +Yes, I think we can use it as a metric for who to primary in 2026. In my opinion, just because a seat is already blue doesn't mean it can't be a better version of blue. I hope that more left-wing progressive politicians are willing to challenge moderate-left incumbents, and if that happens in elections that I can vote in, I'll happily support those further-left progressive challengers. I don't have the time or bandwidth right now to look into future seats that I hope will soon be challenged + Show Spoiler +during the next election cycle, but when they do happen in spaces where I can vote (local, state, national), I pay attention to who's running and try to help whoever I consider to be the best option. You're not alone. Which is a major contributor to why it doesn't happen/hasn't happened often enough to work at scale. It takes people like you (who already spend more time and bandwidth than most investigating and discussing politics) making time and bandwidth for it. It's also part of why I've been asking you about Booker. How does he score on your metrics for if he needs to be primaried or not? Your metrics are pretty useless/hopeless if you can't/refuse to apply them to your own Senator in 2026. Otherwise it's basically just another iteration of the hollow/useless rhetoric I described before
This question is irrelevant because I'm not in charge of whether or not a candidate gets primaried. I don't get to choose who gets primaried and who doesn't. When the time comes for him to run for re-election, and if/when he has to run against an alternative primary challenger, I'll assess how he "scores on my metrics" and compare that to how his opponent "scores on my metrics" in 2026. It's on a relative scale, between two or more actual candidates. I'll cross that bridge if/when we come to it. And as I said at the very beginning, this should be done "for both the primary elections and the general elections". (This also is nothing new, and it's what all of us have been doing for years already.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
