Watching the Democrats just let this shit get worse for year and years, and then FINALLY seeing them go on the offense, it reminds me of this scene from pool hall junkies
I think that’s why Kamala is skyrocketing in the polling averages. We actually have a candidate who is energetic and fights back against the Republican candidate instead of trying to just ignore it and try not to offend anyone.
Or throwing away their base to appeal to “moderates” (eg, class traitors).
Democrats have been non stop winning elections since 2016
Edit: ffs yall of course I know Trump won in 2016 are we really doing this shit?
Yes, we all remember President Hillary Clinton…
…”since 2016” is 2 of the 9 words I commented with. Surely that wasn’t too long of a sentence to read?
Do you understand “since 2016” to be inclusive of, or exclusive of the year?
To over explain:
I understand “since 2016” to be inclusive of the year, which would imply you’re saying they won 2016.
But the only way your statements make sense to me is if you understand them to exclude 2016.Not attempting to argue. I literally can’t tell if I’m shifting off the linguistics baseline as I age/my neurodiversity seems to be getting worse, or if I’m just fucking losing it.
Edit: Another, more likely meaning occurred to me. You may be asserting they won the presidential election, which - they did not. They won the popular vote. They lost the election, however, because presidential elections are designed so that landowners have more say than raw numbers of voters.
It’s an unjust and inequitable electoral approach, but it is the way U.S. presidential elections are determined.You can actually interpret it both ways but based on context and the fact that we all know Donald Trump won in 2016 I would hope people aren’t so difficult online as to default to the obviously wrong interpretation. It seems I’ve once again underestimated how stubborn people can be online in the service of correcting people. Truly that capacity is bottomless so long as there is even a the flimsiest handhold to cling to.
The implication is since Donald Trump won in 2016. Are you done deliberately misinterpreting me or do you want to swap over to playing dense or some other nonsense now since there’s no more room for ambiguity? Can we actually go back to the original point or are you going to keep playing this game?
I’m not sure how to respond, other than to note that you’re 1.) excessively hostile and attribute intent to an inquisitive, non-challenging comment that offered you an extreme amount of leeway in which you could respond in a not-dickish manner, and 2.) you implied something in a medium where you do not know your audience and cannot convey subtext, then got defensive when your failure to explicitly communicate resulted in others misunderstanding you.
My main comment was about linguistics, really. “Since 2016” is factually wrong with no hint you’re implying something else. I was willing to accept that perhaps I was not up with shifting language trends. What you believe you were saying - the implied ‘since Trump’s 2016 win’ makes perfect sense, but that is not what you wrote.
Considering that others actually challenged you on that point and you are generally underwater in your vote ratio, I think it’s fair to say that you are the outlier, and it is not others reaching to misunderstand you or attempt to correct you. It must be a very frustrating existence to poorly communicate and expect others to understand you.And my edit was offering you an opportunity to sidestep the whole linguistics part of it (of which, I remind you - I was not telling you that you were wrong, but asking you if my interpretation was wrong.), and say you meant that the democrats won the popular vote, which is true. My other additions were my own lamentations of the bullshit electoral system, which you seem to have taken as a personal attack.
I hope you have a day that is as lovely as you.
Don’t high road me after that frustrating display of pretending you didn’t understand what I meant. This isn’t a linguistics class, this isn’t an academic paper. My point was clear and you did the annoying “internet correcting” thing. Now you’re falling back on technicalities that aren’t at all necessary to the discussion.
The point is democrats have been winning national elections basically nonstop since Trump won in 2016. That was clear. So talk about the subject at hand or don’t talk at all. Stop wasting our time with this crap.
They also won 2016, to be fair. They’ve won every presidential election since 2004
Bring the pain Waltz. These weirdos deserve it.
Walz not Waltz.
This is gonna be so much fun 🍿
I dont understand why democrat feel like they pretended there was no one else except Biden - Kamala to be the next president when they had a normal person like Walz. He seems more qualify, energetic, and likeable than Kamala.
Because Biden wanted to be president again and the incumbent always gets the say. Glad it was different this time.
Correct. This is how it’s always been.
Tradition. Tradition is frequently stupid. That’s why they had to sweet-talk Biden into calling off his bid. Granted there are reasons to do it that way, but nobody cares much anymore, they just didn’t want to stick their necks out and be called traitors, even if there was little to no risk of splitting the party.
Walz didn’t run in the primary.
Our choice was biden, some blue dog conservative Dem from Minnesota, or rfk.
Biden was the best of the lot.
I don’t understand why democrat[s] […] pretended there was no one else except Biden
It’s only been mentioned about a bajillion times. Go learn why switching out the incumbent is a bad idea. Go.
Switching out the incumbent seems to be working pretty damn well right now.
I think the timing of Biden deciding not to run was perfect. If he had dropped out before or during primaries, I’m not sure we’d have all this energy and momentum.
In a democratic situation, I think if party know alot of people not supporting him and he should step down, they should have announce it before so the voter base can decide who they want. Giving Kamala an advantage doesn’t seem democratic.
Idk about you but I’ve literally never heard of the guy before.
He blew up for me over the past 10 days.
But the New York times wrote an article about him as a teacher in 2006 the year he first ran for Congress.
I really hope they did extensive background checks on him.
He was a teacher for ten years, I highly doubt the dems would have considered him unless they were thorough.
Even the implication of being involved with a minor could be catastrophic to morale.
Rolling Stone - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for Rolling Stone:
MBFC: Left - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this sourceSearch topics on Ground.News
deleted by creator
LMAO
You’re right, we should just do nothing and expect to win.
