|
Its always funny how certain folks come around less and less when there's an actual record of Democrats in power to talk about. At least Handle didn't run and hide like a few of yall.
>Into misremembering the past and ignoring how things work.
>You'd really make a very good Republican.
>
>>Things are really important when an election nears...
>
>Well, yes, the time as an election approaches is a
>particularly good time to run for office. That's when most
>politicians do it, in either party.
Yeah we shouldn't have higher expectations for Democrats, I'm convinced!
>
>>then
>>once they are in power, its all downplayed/ignored/etc.
>
>You're making shit up.
I'm literally not. And you know I'm not.
>
>>1/6, Trump as hitler, COVID, stolen supreme court,
>overturning
>>Roe, the evil GOP, Trump Ukraine, etc, etc
>
>Yup, Yup, Yup, Yup, Yup, Yup, Yup etc.
>
>>^^^ all huge fucking deals when they have to raise money and
>>try to win an election
>
>Huge fucking deals on any day. You're making shit up.
Again, nope. All the shit they warned us about is STILL HAPPENING.
On COVID, outside of a vaccine...the response has been essentially the same- downplay, focus on economy, etc.
Roe about to be overturned. I could go on and on.
>
>>Once in power?
>>
>>Its all- turn the page,
>
>Who ever said that?
Several of your idols have referred to this in combination with the next thing you want to pretend never happened below.
>
>>we need a strong Republican party,
>
>You're making shit up.
LMFAO Biden and Nancy literally said this. Out loud.
Joe Biden still thinks he can reach across the aisle.
Stop.
You can't tell voters for months how evil the GOP is, how they tried to overthrow the government, etc...then say shit like this.
>
>If you're talking about the faint-praise cliche of "It's a
>shame we don't have a serious opposition party anymore.", then
>you must be pretty confused to equate that with "we need a
>strong Republican party."
>
>>job
>>growth,
>
>Wait, are you saying job growth isn't important?
More important than death, sickness, kids getting shot to pieces, fascism on the rise, etc?
No. Not as important.
Is it as important to you?
Fuck kids getting shot, COVID, back-alley abortions, climate, etc....
lets focus on the deficit.
>
>>deficit reduction (LMFAO crying),
>
>Crying about what?
Crying that your boy tried to celebrate this as a win when all this shit is going down.
Crying that he let himself get caught up in a GOP-framed argument let again.
Crying that the week 19 kids were shot to pieces he was tweeting about inflation.
>
>>COVID isn't that
>>bad,
>
>Uhhhhhh... What?
>
>You're making shit up.
Again, no I'm not. And you know I'm not. You just don't want to have an actual discussion...as usual you just want to be a condescending cherry-picking asshole.
>
>>we need to vote more democrats!
>
>Yes, we do. That is the problem. The only way to gain
>political power is to put people in office. You really don't
>have to be such a dummy.
You aren't this dumb. My point was scare! scare! scare! to raise money and always be just short of doing anything meaningful.
on gun violence alone, there is shit that Biden can be doing from his seat to at least put pressure on people....or at least fucking try.
But the game is raising money for the consultants.
>
>>And they end up inevitably looking like opportunistic,
>>hypocritical, spineless, incompetent grifters
>
>There might conceivably be a case to be made here on
>marketing, but you haven't made it. Is your concern that they
>haven't passed any major laws (other than the infrastructure
>bill that was initially conceived as bipartisan, interestingly
>enough...)? It's an understandable concern, given that most
>people don't know how laws are passed.
Yes marketing and again not at least fighting for the shit they raise money off of.
>
>But you, personally you, you put so much energy into ranting
>about how Democrats are incompetent (while never saying a word
>about what they should be doing or why or how) -- if you put a
>third of that effort into thinking about trivial things like
>how to pass a law, you'd have a much better understanding of
>what the situation is and you could approach your pointless
>online rants as if you were a productive member of a
>democratic society.
Thanks for the advice...and if you put as much energy into pushing the party to act as you do defending old white millionaires it might help.
>
>>Absolutely zero of current Dem leaders - or anyone important
>>in the party's infrastructure- is cut out for this.
>
>What should they be doing?
I just ask that Democrats fight for all the scary shit they email me about asking for money.
A more comprehensive COVID response that is mindful of immunocompromised people.
Much of my frustration comes from the first few months of the Biden admin where Dems missed major opportunities.
After 1/6 there was a compelling case to make that the entire experiment was under attack that could have potentially led to some structural change that would have at least evened the scales.
Had literal months to get Manchin on board for something.
But dicked around and wasted time trying to look bipartisan.
>
>Occam's razor: Is it simpler to believe that hundreds of
>millions of people are in the thrall of idiots who have
>devoted their life's work to the same progressive principles
>you claim to hold and yet somehow missed all the simple
>secrets that seem so obvious to you? Or is it more plausible
>that you just aren't interested in the details and that you're
>even less interested in personal self criticism?
Gotdamn you get really personal when someone says something bad about your team.
This is where you get weird.
I think the issue here is you believe these old, white millionaires devoted their life's work to progressive principles.
Like there is an argument for you to make...but turning them into heroes actually makes my argument for me.
You fawn over these people. You care a lot more about them then they do about you and yours.
>
>>These hearings should have happened a while ago.
>
>They did. It was the second impeachment trial.
>
>They claim to have more information now. We'll see. It takes
>time to depose thousands of witnesses. The fact that you're
>thinking they could/should have done "these hearings", say, a
>year earlier, is a sign that you're thinking of them entirely
>as theatrics and not as an effort to establish facts with
>legal rigor. You know what would be completely pointless? A
>rehashing of the arguments from the impeachment trial with no
>new information.
Oh look, you finally made a decent point that isn't wrapped up in hurt feelings over your team.
Fair points...but my point remains- these type of theatrics...and they are theatrics and absolutely should be...would have been more effective prior to this.
At the very least, they should have done more to keep this story in the news so this doesn't look so much like election cycle posturing.
>
>Will new information help to move the dial any further?
>Probably not. I'm as skeptical about that as you are. But if
>you think there's anything better for them to be doing, you
>have the power to say what that is. Maybe the reason you only
>ever say the Dems are fucking up and you never say what they
>should actually be doing is that you're afraid that you might
>be smart enough to realize how dumb you're choosing to be.
>
>>Only hope is
>>this chips away a little at general R support from the
>>mythical moderates. Doubt it though.
>
>Me too, but why do you say "only hope"? Are you under the
>impression that there could have ever been another goal here?
>
Again...
You can't freak out about 1/6...call it an attempt to overthrow the government...call it a terrorist attack...hold a vigil with Lin Manuel (lol lol lol) etc...
then not hold anyone accountable.
It will make them look incompetent at best and like grifters at worse.
I know you want to pretend that Garland is completely sequestered from the admin and he is playing the honorable non-partisan AG or whatever but cmon.
Whats funny? This could have very well been Dems last chance for decades.
You would think you passionate fans with Malarky bumper stickers would be wanting to see more action as well. You would think you would want to go down swinging too.
If voters reject Democrats for being bold against fascists...how is that worse than just surrendering to them? Or pretending they don't exist?
That's what has always cracked me up about you guys...you especially.
"Vote Democrat or things will be terrible!"
** We vote democrat...things proceed to still be mostly terrible. I point out that things are mostly terrible and Democrats aren't doing much...not even really making a public case.
"If Democrats are bold they will lose and things will be terrible! Dummy! Don't be Dumb!" etc etc
** Democrats proceed to be meek and act like its the 90s when many of their leaders were in their 50s and 60s. Democrats lose anyway.
|
Printer-friendly copy 
Email this topic to a friend
General Discussion
