Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There were people in that crowd who were there to murder members of Congress

And, at mango Mussolini’s command, they were looking to do the same to the sitting vice president

You can think the above statements are over the top, but these are indisputable facts

Keep hammering these facts. They are obviously very moving to the voters!.

Look, I was just stating facts. I never said I was trying to move anyone. Obviously voters didn’t care about any of it. I’ll never understand it and I have lost my faith in my fellow Americans because of it, but that’s my personal feelings.

I’ve lost faith in you for blurring the line between “facts” and smearing political opposition. People don’t agree with your motivated reasoning, and it’s not because they are stupid.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There were people in that crowd who were there to murder members of Congress

And, at mango Mussolini’s command, they were looking to do the same to the sitting vice president

You can think the above statements are over the top, but these are indisputable facts

Keep hammering these facts. They are obviously very moving to the voters!.

Look, I was just stating facts. I never said I was trying to move anyone. Obviously voters didn’t care about any of it. I’ll never understand it and I have lost my faith in my fellow Americans because of it, but that’s my personal feelings.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Substance. People want substance from their leaders. The packaging doesn't matter. Continue to try to shove neo-liberalism and corporatism down the throats of the electorate and it does not matter if your candidate is a white woman, a gay man, a black man, or what have you. It DOES NOT MATTER. It's the lack of substance that people are rejecting.

People are struggling to afford a basic standard of living. The GOP offers no solutions, but they do offer an outlet for their fear and anger. The Democrats only shot at countering fear and anger is with real substantive solutions. Raise the freaking minimum wage. Pass parental leave laws. Gut the for-profit medical industry. Address corruption and money in politics ON BOTH SIDES. Make owning a home a realistic dream for young people again. Make retirement a realistic dream for young people again. Make raising a family economically possible without a 6-figure salary again. Make it so every dang job can't require a masters degree while paying us poverty wages.

Stop arguing about what the candidate should look like and start talking about what people NEED and the solutions we can offer them to win their support.

The problem is that Trump’s challenge to the swamp forced Dems into a corner where we are now very pro-establishment. Democrats now believe and assert that the for-profit medical industry is not corrupt, and that anyone questioning it should be censored. Democrats can’t address corruption in government, they believe and assert that there is no corruption on the Democratic side, or even much wasteful spending at all. Democrats believe and assert that Biden’s economy was very strong, and that the affordability crisis is exaggerated by Trump voters. We came to these positions organically—we wanted to oppose Trump everywhere and always. But our pro-establishment stance is killing us in this climate of anti-establishment voters wanting change

These are very extreme interpretations of democrat beliefs. I don’t think any democrat believes there’s zero government waste, but they also do believe that the government isn’t a complete waste of resources and we should fund cancer, HIV, and epidemiological research, we shouldn’t delete whole departments because we think they aren’t 100% efficient, we shouldn’t fire thousands of Americans from their jobs either. Dems are some of the most critical of the healthcare industry around, but they also do believe in vaccines and medicine

This is just a convoluted way of admitting I’m right. These are very pro-establishment beliefs in the eyes of average voters, even if they feel wise and nuanced to you.

NP How is that "pro-establishment"? Serious question.

It’s pro-establishment to fight against audits and cost-cutting in government (while grudgingly admitting that okay maybe there is some waste) and it’s pro-establishment to promote for-profit corporate pharmaceutical products and insist that people should “believe” captured regulators (while grudgingly admitting that okay maybe the bloated health care industry is kind of corrupt). Defenders of corrupt systems don’t get to pat themselves on the back as reformers just because they admit the corruption as a side note).

NP...

Let's be clear on some things.

OIG, GAO, OMB, Congress, and other oversight agencies audited, rooted out corruption, and cut costs for years and nobody fought against it. Nobody defended corrupt systems.

DOGE is anti-establishment in that it isn't actually auditing anything or doing real cost cutting, it is just burning things to the ground. They are not finding corruption, they are fabricating bullshit reasons to destroy needed agencies and services.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jon Stewart is ridiculing Dem leadership.
People want to dump Schumer for caving.
What would be an attack plan that makes sense?
I almost wish we had a parliamentary system right now, a dozen parties and coalitions forming and reforming.

Start by saying we will focus on US workers first , not corporations , not millionaires.

- mandate e-verify
- increase taxes on people making over 300,000
- repeal h1b
- eliminate opt
- fund to protect the southern border
- eliminate tariffs on friends. Increase them on enemies
- we will restore our commitments to Europe and Australia and east Asia


No help for hamas
No free sex change operations
No help for student loans
No reduction in salt tax for rich coastal elites
Get rid of pelosi and Schumer and completely replace DNC

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whatever this is, do the opposite.

Can you prove it was arson and not just another one of Musk’s shoddily built, death trap cars catching fire again? No, you cannot.

And if it was arson, can they prove it was a Democrat, and not an anarchocommunist, or a random mentally ill person, or anything else? Nope, you can't.

At this point those things are all synonymous.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There were people in that crowd who were there to murder members of Congress

And, at mango Mussolini’s command, they were looking to do the same to the sitting vice president

You can think the above statements are over the top, but these are indisputable facts

Keep hammering these facts. They are obviously very moving to the voters!.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whatever this is, do the opposite.

Can you prove it was arson and not just another one of Musk’s shoddily built, death trap cars catching fire again? No, you cannot.

And if it was arson, can they prove it was a Democrat, and not an anarchocommunist, or a random mentally ill person, or anything else? Nope, you can't.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whatever this is, do the opposite.

Can you prove it was arson and not just another one of Musk’s shoddily built, death trap cars catching fire again? No, you cannot.

Anonymous wrote:There were people in that crowd who were there to murder members of Congress

And, at mango Mussolini’s command, they were looking to do the same to the sitting vice president

You can think the above statements are over the top, but these are indisputable facts

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whatever this is, do the opposite.

Can you prove it was arson and not just another one of Musk’s shoddily built, death trap cars catching fire again? No, you cannot.