|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On June 05 2026 21:11 LightSpectra wrote:
90%+ of voters are never switching their votes because being for/against abortion, queer rights, etc. is too deeply held a value for them.
Swing voters generally pick based on vibes (name recognition, whatever "scandal" is in the news, if gas prices very recently rose even though that's a relatively small part of their finances, etc.). There's not much use in talking about long term strategies to win over those voters, their minds wander like a goldfish scrolling Facebook.
There are also a decent amount of people who just don’t care about social issues and only care about “the economy”, or “government spending”.
Democrats need to do a much better job of showing that they do better, when I get people to look at the deficits at the end of Republican presidents compared to Democrats for example. They need to break the myth that Republicans are the financially responsible ones and there is votes to be won.
|
On June 05 2026 21:33 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2026 13:32 oBlade wrote:On June 05 2026 09:35 Billyboy wrote:On June 05 2026 08:58 Razyda wrote:On June 05 2026 00:48 WombaT wrote:
B) Having a party more open to disagreement? The wider left can’t simultaneously be (rightly) criticised for endless infighting and in-factions, but be not open to disagreement. I’d contend there’s plenty of diversity there too, and it’s not merely theoretical. There is plenty with American conservatism too, even if it’s heavily subsumed by devotion to the Dear Leader.
I think you are mistaken here and Introvert is correct. Look through this forum (left leaning members, except GH) and tell me what exactly policy would Democrats have to adopt for them to not vote blue, knowing that it may cause conservatives to win? ( I wont even mention turn them to vote conservatives) There are not many left because the Republicans have gotten so bonkers with the right wing Christian nationalist populism it is hard to out crazy them. But if the Republicans returned to the John McCain types then there would be a bunch of policy that could cause people to switch. History showed great electoral success in terms of people switching to vote for the amnesty-for-illegals John McCain type Republicans. Damn oBlade, you totally got it again and obliterated me! But real talk, after the weekly “Trump never did or said that” and it’s proven that he did, how do you just completely forget or ignore it? You think well before the number of times it happens to you that your perspective might shift a little. Is it that you just consume so much garbage that reality has no place to stick?
Generally I go "Yes, please do that again and this time even better or more."
What do you do? Use the battle raging in your head to treat hypotension?
|
On June 05 2026 21:37 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2026 21:11 LightSpectra wrote:
90%+ of voters are never switching their votes because being for/against abortion, queer rights, etc. is too deeply held a value for them.
Swing voters generally pick based on vibes (name recognition, whatever "scandal" is in the news, if gas prices very recently rose even though that's a relatively small part of their finances, etc.). There's not much use in talking about long term strategies to win over those voters, their minds wander like a goldfish scrolling Facebook. There are also a decent amount of people who just don’t care about social issues and only care about “the economy”, or “government spending”. Democrats need to do a much better job of showing that they do better, when I get people to look at the deficits at the end of Republican presidents compared to Democrats for example. They need to break the myth that Republicans are the financially responsible ones and there is votes to be won.
Sounds like a great idea until the amnesia kicks in and they're mad about gas prices or buttery males again.
|
Northern Ireland27271 Posts
On June 05 2026 21:07 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2026 20:25 WombaT wrote:On June 05 2026 10:35 Razyda wrote:On June 05 2026 09:54 WombaT wrote:On June 05 2026 08:58 Razyda wrote:On June 05 2026 00:48 WombaT wrote:
B) Having a party more open to disagreement? The wider left can’t simultaneously be (rightly) criticised for endless infighting and in-factions, but be not open to disagreement. I’d contend there’s plenty of diversity there too, and it’s not merely theoretical. There is plenty with American conservatism too, even if it’s heavily subsumed by devotion to the Dear Leader.
I think you are mistaken here and Introvert is correct. Look through this forum (left leaning members, except GH) and tell me what exactly policy would Democrats have to adopt for them to not vote blue, knowing that it may cause conservatives to win? ( I wont even mention turn them to vote conservatives) Well they’re not conservative, so why would they? This was kind of precisely my point. They’re rather different parties, appealing to quite different people ideologically, at this stage. The genuine, on-the fence swing voter is getting rarer as polarisation increases. Both camps of support internally are quite ideologically diverse, the Christian fundamentalist ain’t the socially liberal libertarian. Nor is the fan of socialism particularly similar to the social liberal who maybe wants a slightly fairer tax regime but is generally down with capitalism or whatever It’s somewhat instructive you rarely hear about the right toning down to win some hypothetical swing voters, because they basically don’t exist. It’s however, frequently proposed as a tactic the left should employ for, some reason Wombat you can not realise thats what you are saying is a myth? "Well they’re not conservative, so why would they? " But not voting for progresive when you arent one is bad? "The genuine, on-the fence swing voter is getting rarer as polarisation increases. " Its not. I think this is misconception. It is not that fence swing voters getting rarer, it is that parties push policies/ actions which are deterring swing voters for voting for any of the 2. "Both camps of support internally are quite ideologically diverse, the Christian fundamentalist ain’t the socially liberal libertarian. Nor is the fan of socialism particularly similar to the social liberal who maybe wants a slightly fairer tax regime but is generally down with capitalism or whatever " Like really? Do you honestly think that gap between Christian fundamentalist and socially liberal libertarian is the same as gap between " fan of socialism" and "social liberal"? You kinda prove Introvert point here. The only reason right is able to put a fight is because it accepted others. "It’s somewhat instructive you rarely hear about the right toning down to win some hypothetical swing voters, because they basically don’t exist. It’s however, frequently proposed as a tactic the left should employ for, some reason" Not really, no. What you mean by toning down is accepting left world view. When it comes to, for example abortion right is not unified at all, similarly when it comes to Israel. The reason you dont hear about right toning down is because it doesnt need to. General attitude on the right is " you agree with me on this, and disagree on this? great we can work something out". On the left it is more like " you agree with me on this, and disagree on this? You f...ng NAZI" The left, and by left I am including the centre left thru to the far left can’t be simultaneously an ideological hive mind, but also unable to agree and fight amongst themselves all the time. Keir Starmer is (basically) doing exactly what people say you should do tonally to appeal to the centre. In the trans domain, especially on immigration, and he’s still getting hammered, and still losing ground to the likes of Reform. An imperfect example for many other reasons, but I’m throwing out there specifically as a counterpoint to the idea that if you throw a few bones and dilute things, that you’ll grab all these supposed swing voters. Agree, it cant, thats why it needs to drop hive mind thing and accommodate to more positions. As you said Starmer is not exactly comparison, especially now for quite few reasons, first and foremost by emergence of additional options, in this case reform and greens, so him loosing support doesnt mean that conservatives win. As for appealing to centre - Trans issue wasnt him it was court, immigration he didnt achieve much (170k net looks nice then you realize that 130k Brits left, rough numbers from memory), then he went with things like OSA which was deeply unpopular, and the answer to petition was basically "FU we can do what we want" this is not kind of attitude which is going to make you popular. He also went for people ISAs. Also I dont think UK is similarly ideologically divided in regards to issues like abortion. It becomes more and more divided, but the lines of divide are different and still being drawn.
And why are the Greens making hay? Partly because they’re gaining support from people whose traditional home was towards the left of the Labour Party
Meanwhile, the net migrations didn’t come down under over a decade of Tory rule, Labour cut them almost immediately, and quite considerably.
Are they making much political hay off doing that? Not really, Reform are still making bank there anyway.
It’s not meant to be a perfect example, merely an illustrative one, that ‘well if you just moderate and meet x folks halfway’, it’s not a sure fire path to political paydirt.
I’m far from defending the totality of his record, indeed I was opposed to Starmer and Labour’s pivot in the first place. For the aforementioned reasons. I liked Corbyn but, flawed and perhaps too left for our collective sensibilities, but take some of that message and sand the edges off was the play I reckon. Which seems to be what some of his leadership challengers are going to attempt.
Incidentally the ONS is less unpopular than terminally online people think, although not necessarily policy I approve of in certain ways myself.
|
On June 05 2026 21:56 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2026 21:37 Billyboy wrote:On June 05 2026 21:11 LightSpectra wrote:
90%+ of voters are never switching their votes because being for/against abortion, queer rights, etc. is too deeply held a value for them.
Swing voters generally pick based on vibes (name recognition, whatever "scandal" is in the news, if gas prices very recently rose even though that's a relatively small part of their finances, etc.). There's not much use in talking about long term strategies to win over those voters, their minds wander like a goldfish scrolling Facebook. There are also a decent amount of people who just don’t care about social issues and only care about “the economy”, or “government spending”. Democrats need to do a much better job of showing that they do better, when I get people to look at the deficits at the end of Republican presidents compared to Democrats for example. They need to break the myth that Republicans are the financially responsible ones and there is votes to be won. Sounds like a great idea until the amnesia kicks in and they're mad about gas prices or buttery males again.
Exactly. If you vote for Trump because you care about government spending, you are insane. Maybe the first time, but after he broke all spending records that first time, you simply can no longer use that excuse.
People who claim they do this are lying. Like republicans always do when talking about what they are doing for what reason. They always claim to have some big principled stance, but if things shift slightly that big principle never matters.
My best guess is that what people actually mean when saying they care about the deficit is "I don't like tax money going to poor people."
|
While it’d be neat and tidy to simply label nonsensical political views and voting justifications as such, I don’t think it’s quite so simple. We can’t really overstate just how much flat out manipulation by monied interests occurs in politics, especially in the United States. Many of these folks aren’t liars, they’ve had their decision making and judgment co-opted by shit like algorithms and unaccountably incorrect “political speech.” Which is to say lying is definitely a problem, only it’s less of one among average voters than seems obvious at first glance.
|
Northern Ireland27271 Posts
On June 05 2026 21:37 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2026 21:11 LightSpectra wrote:
90%+ of voters are never switching their votes because being for/against abortion, queer rights, etc. is too deeply held a value for them.
Swing voters generally pick based on vibes (name recognition, whatever "scandal" is in the news, if gas prices very recently rose even though that's a relatively small part of their finances, etc.). There's not much use in talking about long term strategies to win over those voters, their minds wander like a goldfish scrolling Facebook. There are also a decent amount of people who just don’t care about social issues and only care about “the economy”, or “government spending”. Democrats need to do a much better job of showing that they do better, when I get people to look at the deficits at the end of Republican presidents compared to Democrats for example. They need to break the myth that Republicans are the financially responsible ones and there is votes to be won.
It takes a Google. It does also feature rather frequently in speeches and pressers, I dunno how one punches through that.
Frankly I think some people just lie about this particular one. It ain’t the deficit/surplus they care about, it’s the taxes baby! Going back to my previous point on that.
In a wider sense, there’s such a big gap for many between these wider macroeconomic numbers and what that means for them, that it’s really difficult to bridge that kind of divide.
I think say a Sanders, or an AOC are quite good on the inequality, lived experience stuff, perhaps a bit ‘class warfare’ for some tastes. I think some of the Biden/Harris policy stuff that DPB kinda routinely provided here was pretty good on the big picture side, but a bit ‘policy wonk’ for genpop as it were (although, I’m absolutely down for policy wonk stuff)
I feel if you can almost synthesise those two things well, you’re onto a winner, although fuck me how you do that in today’s information sphere.
Like him or loathe him, one bloke who was pretty bloody good at that was Franklin Delano Roosevelt, but I dunno if that’s a playbook you can just dust off and reuse.
And yes I am aware why the ‘Green New Deal’ was so named :p
|
Northern Ireland27271 Posts
On June 05 2026 22:13 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2026 21:56 LightSpectra wrote:On June 05 2026 21:37 Billyboy wrote:On June 05 2026 21:11 LightSpectra wrote:
90%+ of voters are never switching their votes because being for/against abortion, queer rights, etc. is too deeply held a value for them.
Swing voters generally pick based on vibes (name recognition, whatever "scandal" is in the news, if gas prices very recently rose even though that's a relatively small part of their finances, etc.). There's not much use in talking about long term strategies to win over those voters, their minds wander like a goldfish scrolling Facebook. There are also a decent amount of people who just don’t care about social issues and only care about “the economy”, or “government spending”. Democrats need to do a much better job of showing that they do better, when I get people to look at the deficits at the end of Republican presidents compared to Democrats for example. They need to break the myth that Republicans are the financially responsible ones and there is votes to be won. Sounds like a great idea until the amnesia kicks in and they're mad about gas prices or buttery males again. Exactly. If you vote for Trump because you care about government spending, you are insane. Maybe the first time, but after he broke all spending records that first time, you simply can no longer use that excuse. People who claim they do this are lying. Like republicans always do when talking about what they are doing for what reason. They always claim to have some big principled stance, but if things shift slightly that big principle never matters. My best guess is that what people actually mean when saying they care about the deficit is "I don't like tax money going to poor people."
Ding ding ding!
With the caveat that some people well, are just wrong or misinformed. There is also a cohort of people who I think do genuinely care about such things, but they tend to actually look at the numbers, and they also tend to look at both sides of tax income and expenditure
Perhaps I’m misremembering and apologies in advance if so, but I think say, FlashFTW is a genuine fiscal conservative, and thus not the type I’m chatting subsequently.
But some are lying, maybe not even to you, maybe to themselves to the degree they believe it. Will they be happy if you give them what you want? No, because it’s not actually what they want.
Say my partner is pissy at me, I ask why and she says I’m a messy pig and should have listened to Jordan Peterson when he said clean up your room. OK so I’m keeping tidy, vacuuming like a motherfucker on the regular, etc etc. But wait, she’s still pissed off?! I’ve been trying to solve the issue raised!
Well you can extrapolate that dynamic out to the political realm and see how it becomes problematic.
You make policy to placate concerns, but you don’t get the commensurate political capital back, because those aren’t actually the concerns. And worse you may piss other people off and lose support you did have elsewhere.
Also for the record my personal anecdote was purely hypothetical, I’m actually the neat freak in my relationship :p
|
On June 05 2026 22:13 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2026 21:56 LightSpectra wrote:On June 05 2026 21:37 Billyboy wrote:On June 05 2026 21:11 LightSpectra wrote:
90%+ of voters are never switching their votes because being for/against abortion, queer rights, etc. is too deeply held a value for them.
Swing voters generally pick based on vibes (name recognition, whatever "scandal" is in the news, if gas prices very recently rose even though that's a relatively small part of their finances, etc.). There's not much use in talking about long term strategies to win over those voters, their minds wander like a goldfish scrolling Facebook. There are also a decent amount of people who just don’t care about social issues and only care about “the economy”, or “government spending”. Democrats need to do a much better job of showing that they do better, when I get people to look at the deficits at the end of Republican presidents compared to Democrats for example. They need to break the myth that Republicans are the financially responsible ones and there is votes to be won. Sounds like a great idea until the amnesia kicks in and they're mad about gas prices or buttery males again. + Show Spoiler +
Exactly. If you vote for Trump because you care about government spending, you are insane. Maybe the first time, but after he broke all spending records that first time, you simply can no longer use that excuse.
People who claim they do this are lying. Like republicans always do when talking about what they are doing for what reason. They always claim to have some big principled stance, but if things shift slightly that big principle never matters.
My best guess is that what people actually mean when saying they care about the deficit is "I don't like tax money going to poor people."
Yes and no. It's not so much "poor people" as "the wrong people". Plenty of them give lots of money/help to poor people.
It's the "undeserving" feeling and it's not unique to Republicans. It was pretty fundamental among Democrats when passing the New Deal. It came back up during Clinton's welfare reform.
|
On June 05 2026 21:52 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2026 21:33 Billyboy wrote:On June 05 2026 13:32 oBlade wrote:On June 05 2026 09:35 Billyboy wrote:On June 05 2026 08:58 Razyda wrote:On June 05 2026 00:48 WombaT wrote:
B) Having a party more open to disagreement? The wider left can’t simultaneously be (rightly) criticised for endless infighting and in-factions, but be not open to disagreement. I’d contend there’s plenty of diversity there too, and it’s not merely theoretical. There is plenty with American conservatism too, even if it’s heavily subsumed by devotion to the Dear Leader.
I think you are mistaken here and Introvert is correct. Look through this forum (left leaning members, except GH) and tell me what exactly policy would Democrats have to adopt for them to not vote blue, knowing that it may cause conservatives to win? ( I wont even mention turn them to vote conservatives) There are not many left because the Republicans have gotten so bonkers with the right wing Christian nationalist populism it is hard to out crazy them. But if the Republicans returned to the John McCain types then there would be a bunch of policy that could cause people to switch. History showed great electoral success in terms of people switching to vote for the amnesty-for-illegals John McCain type Republicans. Damn oBlade, you totally got it again and obliterated me! But real talk, after the weekly “Trump never did or said that” and it’s proven that he did, how do you just completely forget or ignore it? You think well before the number of times it happens to you that your perspective might shift a little. Is it that you just consume so much garbage that reality has no place to stick? Generally I go "Yes, please do that again and this time even better or more." What do you do? Use the battle raging in your head to treat hypotension?
I have not had an experience of me claiming Trump never said something or did something that he has said and done a huge number of times. But if I did it would be very different experience from yours because when I gain new information it changes my perspective. I don’t just get my opinion downloaded to me by influencers. It’s wild you should try thinking for yourself.
|
On June 05 2026 22:19 farvacola wrote:
While it’d be neat and tidy to simply label nonsensical political views and voting justifications as such, I don’t think it’s quite so simple. We can’t really overstate just how much flat out manipulation by monied interests occurs in politics, especially in the United States. Many of these folks aren’t liars, they’ve had their decision making and judgment co-opted by shit like algorithms and unaccountably incorrect “political speech.” Which is to say lying is definitely a problem, only it’s less of one among average voters than seems obvious at first glance.
This can’t be overstated enough, things like citizens united have impacted your country (and sadly the world because of how much we all consume what you consume) drastically. And then “influencers” having no rules at all and becoming basically paid propagandists is only making it worse as people are getting it all the time from all sides.
I remember reading a study about how fact checkers were even influenced by the stuff they were marking as false when they saw it enough.
|
Citizens United plus algos and social media turns out to be toxic combo!
|
On June 05 2026 22:19 farvacola wrote:
While it’d be neat and tidy to simply label nonsensical political views and voting justifications as such, I don’t think it’s quite so simple. We can’t really overstate just how much flat out manipulation by monied interests occurs in politics, especially in the United States. Many of these folks aren’t liars, they’ve had their decision making and judgment co-opted by shit like algorithms and unaccountably incorrect “political speech.” Which is to say lying is definitely a problem, only it’s less of one among average voters than seems obvious at first glance.
Shit's bleak and there's also this just general aura of "not giving a fuck" I can only describe through examples like this:
Part of the excitement among writers seems to stem from the freedom of parting with standards enforced by traditional publications. “It’s okay to get some facts wrong,” a political journalist suggests to me about reporting on Substack. “It’s honestly refreshing."
People are basically doing whatever they believe they have to in order to fulfil their Maslow base needs and then extracting their safety needs through the subjugation of those that haven't yet at the behest of those "self-actualizing" as anti-social psychopaths.
|
On June 05 2026 23:27 farvacola wrote:
Citizens United plus algos and social media turns out to be toxic combo!
Might be more shocking than Iran closing the strait of Hormuz
|
On June 05 2026 23:36 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2026 22:19 farvacola wrote:
While it’d be neat and tidy to simply label nonsensical political views and voting justifications as such, I don’t think it’s quite so simple. We can’t really overstate just how much flat out manipulation by monied interests occurs in politics, especially in the United States. Many of these folks aren’t liars, they’ve had their decision making and judgment co-opted by shit like algorithms and unaccountably incorrect “political speech.” Which is to say lying is definitely a problem, only it’s less of one among average voters than seems obvious at first glance. Shit's bleak and there's also this just general aura of "not giving a fuck" I can only describe through examples like this: + Show Spoiler +Show nested quote +Part of the excitement among writers seems to stem from the freedom of parting with standards enforced by traditional publications. “It’s okay to get some facts wrong,” a political journalist suggests to me about reporting on Substack. “It’s honestly refreshing." People are basically doing whatever they believe they have to in order to fulfil their Maslow base needs and then extracting their safety needs through the subjugation of those that haven't yet at the behest of those "self-actualizing" as anti-social psychopaths.
Yeah that's a super fucked up quote. I could see a journalist maybe framing mistakes as "I always try to be factually correct, but sometimes I get it wrong and there's always room for improvement", but I don't really see a redeeming interpretation of "It's okay to get some facts wrong". No, it's not okay, which is why their job includes trying to correctly report facts. As a math teacher, I can't imagine trying to say that it's okay if some of the stuff I teach is wrong.
|
On June 05 2026 23:36 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2026 22:19 farvacola wrote:
While it’d be neat and tidy to simply label nonsensical political views and voting justifications as such, I don’t think it’s quite so simple. We can’t really overstate just how much flat out manipulation by monied interests occurs in politics, especially in the United States. Many of these folks aren’t liars, they’ve had their decision making and judgment co-opted by shit like algorithms and unaccountably incorrect “political speech.” Which is to say lying is definitely a problem, only it’s less of one among average voters than seems obvious at first glance. Shit's bleak and there's also this just general aura of "not giving a fuck" I can only describe through examples like this: https://twitter.com/GQMagazine/status/2062589938433192387Show nested quote +Part of the excitement among writers seems to stem from the freedom of parting with standards enforced by traditional publications. “It’s okay to get some facts wrong,” a political journalist suggests to me about reporting on Substack. “It’s honestly refreshing." People are basically doing whatever they believe they have to in order to fulfil their Maslow base needs and then extracting their safety needs through the subjugation of those that haven't yet at the behest of those "self-actualizing" as anti-social psychopaths. The flip part of this is the decline in standards of legacy media. Recall that this is GQ, a Conde Nast publication (Vogue, New Yorker, Vanity Fair), dropping an anonymous, damaging tidbit about a competitor that's taking off, the Substack platform. Substack, in its turn, has been recruiting people from legacy publication to buffer its journalistic cred, like Paul Krugman, Jim Acosta, and Jennifer Rubin. I'd call this mud-wrestling by all sides.
|
On June 05 2026 23:36 GreenHorizons wrote:
People are basically doing whatever they believe they have to in order to fulfil their Maslow base needs and then extracting their safety needs through the subjugation of those that haven't yet at the behest of those "self-actualizing" as anti-social psychopaths.
Yeah cause with the current state of affairs, people seemingly randomly turning into anti-socials is so surprising.
Seems like an appropriate response to poor leadership.
If you have an anti-social leadership, you get an anti-social population. It's not that unsurprising.
These guys could turn a hobo with a phone into Saddam Hussein if they wanted to. Must be part of the plan of handing out free beatdowns.
Or they could use it to set a precedent that doesn't allow organized douchebaggery.
Wouldn't want people going around making a business out of hurting others.
Probably too late for that in Germany and Austria. The ball's usually in more competent instances.
|
Trump issued an executive order that GS15 level program managers will be converted to at-will employees. Trump is once again breaking the unofficial unwritten deal that government workers in Canada and the USA have been part of for a hundred zillion years. They trade less money for more guarantees and stability.
Better start paying these GS 15s private industry type salaries.
Was this development on Rebel News recently? lol.
|
On June 05 2026 13:01 Introvert wrote:
The Republican party does run towards the center, esp in the Trump years. A majority of voters want(ed) deportations, "no men in women's sports" and no reforms to Social Security or Medicare. Much of Trump's victory was not only saying "Biden sucked" but it was pointing back to Kamala's *own words* as a politician from deep blue California. Trump was seen (accurately) as the more moderate candidate.
It really says a lot about how brain broken USA is that this kind of insane post gets dropped and no one bats an eye.
This guys says that Republicans are moderating towards center and that Trump was more moderate then Kamala, I mean, how can someone write this out and not self-combust from palpable irony is insane to me.
The guy who enacted more then half of the project 2025 fascism speed-run playbook is "the moderate" and the party who enabled this is the one "running towards the center".
The guy, like every other wanna be strong man far right fascist has gone after minorities, taken away rights from them, started wars and exploded the budget and this guy has the gal to write this shit out, amazing!
|
On June 06 2026 02:31 Jankisa wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2026 13:01 Introvert wrote:
The Republican party does run towards the center, esp in the Trump years. A majority of voters want(ed) deportations, "no men in women's sports" and no reforms to Social Security or Medicare. Much of Trump's victory was not only saying "Biden sucked" but it was pointing back to Kamala's *own words* as a politician from deep blue California. Trump was seen (accurately) as the more moderate candidate.
It really says a lot about how brain broken USA is that this kind of insane post gets dropped and no one bats an eye. This guys says that Republicans are moderating towards center and that Trump was more moderate then Kamala, I mean, how can someone write this out and not self-combust from palpable irony is insane to me. The guy who enacted more then half of the project 2025 fascism speed-run playbook is "the moderate" and the party who enabled this is the one "running towards the center". The guy, like every other wanna be strong man far right fascist has gone after minorities, taken away rights from them, started wars and exploded the budget and this guy has the gal to write this shit out, amazing!
That wasn't even the dumbest part of Introvert's post.
"Meanwhile John Fetterman votes for the Dem way something like 95+ percent of the time and he's about to be ejected the next time he's up."
Fetterman votes in favor of the Iran War and increasing funding of ICE, a rogue paramilitary, higher than the entire military budget of Russia. Both of these positions are wildly unpopular with not just Democrats but independents and even a significant portion of Republicans. Meanwhile Thomas Massie actually did vote in lockstep for everything the GOP believes in, except covering up child molesters and giving more aid to Israel who don't need it. For that he had to undergo the most expensive primary in United States history.
The GOP is a big tent! (* Disclaimer: As long as you'll eat Trump's, Netanyahu's, and Epstein's warm shit on live TV)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
