#Not just pro-dem/biden? Like you're actively

[jaythelay]

it's anti-christian to oppose the US's war with Afghanistan!

Just like it's anti-semetic to say Israel is committing a Genocide against Palestinians.

Cool stuff ya got goin' on here dems. Very intellectual stuff.

[voroxpete]

This whole opinion piece is worth reading, but I want to call out this one part in particular, because I think this is where you really see Bernie's experience as both an activist and a politician coming through:

"[A]fter Harris wins we will, together, do everything we can to change US policy toward Netanyahu – including an immediate ceasefire, the return of all hostages, a surge of massive humanitarian aid, the stopping of settler attacks on the West Bank, and the rebuilding of Gaza for the Palestinian people.

"And let me be clear. We will have, in my view, a much better chance of changing US policy with Harris than with Trump, who is extremely close to Netanyahu and sees him as a like-minded, rightwing extremist ally."

I remember a while back hearing someone say something that really stuck with me: "Voting is where you get to choose your opponent."

That's what's happening here. We're asking you to choose a better opponent. We're not trying to defend Harris' position on Gaza. Anything less than a full throated condemnation of Isreal's genocide is indefensible. We're not asking you to give up your morals and side with her anyway, as if you have to join some kind of team, as if who you vote for is your identity.

We're asking you to make the smart, pragmatic decision, for the good of the people in Gaza.

No matter how far away from our position Harris and Walz may be (and it is pretty far, no doubt about it), I promise you, Trump and Vance are further from it. Even if Harris can be said to be tacitly endorsing Isreal's actions, Trump is literally saying that they should be doing more genocide. Trump wants Isreal to go further, be more relentless, more merciless. Trump believes that not enough Palestinians have been murdered.

You cannot reason with that. With a Harris/Walz whitehouse there is a chance, however slim, that we can move them on this issue. There will be at least some measure of restraint, some desire not to be seen to be actively endorsing genocide.

It will be difficult. The people defending Gaza will be fighting against AIPAC's deep pockets, against the entrenched pro-Isreal sentiments in the Democrat party, against the long-standing American foreign policy agenda that dictates that Isreal must be maintained as a regional ally in the middle-East. No one is claiming that Harris or the Dems will be easy to move on this issue.

But it will be a whole lot harder to move the Republicans and Trump.

Voting is when you pick your opponent. You're not endorsing their agenda. You're not making a moral statement. You're just booking the next round in the fight. Pick the opponent that will serve our goals the best. Because if you don't, your racist, pro-Isreal Evangelical Christian grandparents are going to pick for you. And that will not go well for you, and it certainly won't go well for the people in Palestine.

[yourtoradorasextendedwarranty]

I don't understand people sometimes. I was scrolling through a little earlier and saw someone call Trump a fascist which isn't uncommon but it wasn't from someone I'd have expected to it come from. But nothing about Trump is fascist. Sure he's nationalistic but fascistic and nationalistic are not the same.

What's more when it comes to Dems v Reps I don't see how anyone can vote for Dems especially when they've gone full Neo Progressive. What do I mean? Well let's look at the most general of what the parties have represented across the US.

The right has been pro border security and this has been exemplified by Rep states either reinforcing their own borders, or sending them to sanctuary states.

The right has been historically and still is anti abortion. And while I didn't personally fully after with the stance, it SHOULD be left to the states to decide.

The right are for protecting the second amendment and even IF not all politicians on the right are for it, the SCOTUS justices that do understand the conservative values of the Constitution have given us more freedoms back. Many red states in fact now have constitutional carry.

Also of note those same justices have removed the Chevron act. Meaning that 3 letter agreements etc can't just wildly interpret the law as they please.

Now having said all this yes, there are war hawks on the right. There are racists on the right there are sexists on the right. But those same people very much exist on the left with no shortage at all

The left supports full term abortion and doesn't even consider the child alive until it's outside the womb.

The left is STAUNCHLY anti gun and anti second amendment.

The left is staunchly anti first amendment as seen by their calls to "hate speech".

The left is mostly pro open borders

The left is and has been pro war for a long time. Need proof? Obama started almost 5 new wars.

The left has proven recently they are ABSOLUTELY above the law and will manipulate every word in existence to jail their political rivals.

The left is actively racist and actively promotes white supremacist ideology with stuff like affirmative action and DEI.

The left has gone out of their way to allow kids to transition and get surgeries before the age of 16 even and want kids introduced to and TAUGHT LGBT themes, and have pushed for graphic pornographic books to be in elementary schools.

Leftists states and federally have demanded higher taxes, reduced potentialities for crimes, have sold you out to China, and aim to replace you with illegals they can buy off.

Is this a commentary on ALL of the Left and Dems and ALL of the Right and Reps? No. There's good and bad on both sides. But if we look at policies pushed, and the media apparatus who's been lying non-stop for years who are very clearly leaving left we see the real pattern of behavior. And it bothers me. I'm a left of center, small l, libertarian. You'd think the Dems world actually be "my side" and yet, they aren't. Biden insists on being a tyrant and ignoring SCOTUS ruling WAY outside of his power, trying to forgive loans that he doesn't have the right to forgive since it comes out of the taxpayers dime. And what bothers me even more, is the fact that he has also repealed all of the legislation that Trump pushed forward that kept our border safe. Specifically remain in Mexico. Which was very reasonable legislation.

Looking at all of this objectively no sane person can go with Biden or the Democrats. And as far as I am concerned, if at this point you are on the side of the Democrats then you're in favor of anarcho tyranny. You're in favor of lawlessness. And your favor of being manipulated by the media Non-Stop and watching the dollar crater in value.

[jajatheunwise]

seeing a lot of heartbreak and outrage happening post-election, and i just needed to write out my thoughts because I've heard too many bad takes pinning blame in the wrong places, even from friends.

tl;dr: Kamala didn't lose because of racism/sexism/pro-palestine voters. she lost because the system she serves - the system that was supposed to serve the people - decided our needs could be ignored, as long as they could keep pretending to be better than Trump. She lost because people paid attention to what she said she would do (for both domestic and foreign policy) and realized there was no lesser evil, only the same evil.

People absolutely have the right to feel like the world is ending. but if you only started feeling that way after the election (or you're blaming pro-Palestine folks for Kamala losing), please reflect on whether your activism is truly for the people or just for YOUR people.

let's look at the facts. 2 million more people voted trump this year compared to when he lost in 2020, but kamala lost 15 million of the people that voted blue in 2020. why?

was it racism/sexism? the people that vote blue are usually not the ones who take issue with a black female president. it's generally republicans who have a problem with that, so kamala wasted her entire campaign trying to pander to conservatives who were going to vote trump anyway. the right wing is growing (especially among young male voters) and that is undeniably scary, but that's not the only reason she lost.

she could have had the easiest win in history. all she had to do was listen to her voters. a majority of voters, especially in swing states, said they'd be more likely to vote for her if she ended the genocide. dems chose AIPAC money instead. and no they weren't "working tirelessly for a ceasefire," previous republican presidents have forced israel to stop its aggressions with a single phone call. if biden/harris gave a shit, they could even end it now, while biden is still president.

even after crossing that giant red line of genocide, she could have promised policies to show she would be significantly different than trump, so we could at least believe a blue vote would reduce harm and protect our most marginalized populations. For most of the election, I believed pretty strongly in voting for her to reduce harm to our most marginalized communities. but then she ignored the demands of her voting base and chose to pander to Trump supporters by being as much like Trump in policy as possible. she promised to be more tough on crime and immigration than trump, to build the world's most lethal military, to give trump supporters a seat at her table. she refused to speak up for trans rights or against fracking. dems refused to codify roe v wade because they wanted to be able to dangle that carrot. essentially, she wanted to do everything trump did, but without being as openly evil about it so they could keep saying trump was worse.

so yeah, that might have lost a lot of people. and while I don't think Trump supporters are above tampering with ballots, I don't think a recount would do shit because this is genuinely how the people voted.

some people have decided to blame palestinians and 3rd party voters for not voting kamala, instead of blaming the democratic party for doing nothing to earn their vote. first off, even all the 3rd party voters combined wouldn't have changed the election results because most people were too disillusioned to vote when both parties ignored their needs so badly. Secondly, to all the people saying that 3rd party voters were privileged to make a performative vote based on our self-righteous morals because it wouldn't affect us: I live in a solid blue state, so no matter how I voted, it would not have affected the election results. So if all our CA votes were purely a way to communicate our values, I'd rather stick to my values. A blue vote would have communicated that Democrats could get away with genocide and still have our popular support. I have no regrets about voting Jill Stein, even knowing that she wouldn't win. I did have some hope because if a 3rd party managed to amass 5% of the popular vote, it would have been eligible to receive public funding and guaranteed ballot access, so in future elections we might not be stuck with 2 genocidal options. I voted out of hope, and it was the only option that had even the slightest chance of resulting in anything good.

and to anyone blaming pro-palestine folx: of course we're not happy about a trump presidency. of course we care about all the marginalized folx he will undoubtedly target, but can you say the same for yourself? can you really say you care for the palestinians when you're walking over their dead bodies to support the people who enabled their genocide, because you're afraid your rights will be endangered? y'all need to understand that regardless of who won, for palestinians, it's the same worst-case scenario with different face paint. we're horrified trump won, but we're also horrified that our only 2 options were both so bad. under biden, we've watched hundreds of thousands be slaughtered with our tax money for over a year while the media silenced their suffering. when people protested and demanded that the administration follow international law, dems at the dnc laughed and plugged their ears and kamala said "if you want trump to win, just say that." How could democrats expect people to fall in line and support her just because trump would supposedly do worse? how were palestinian americans gonna fear trump when they've already been living their worst case scenario for over a year? and now that he's president and your rights are on the line, you expect them to empathize? if you're heartbroken and outraged now, you absolutely have a right to feel that way. but if you only started feeling that way after the election, please take some time to introspect. if you're saying you don't care about Palestine anymore because we let trump win, you never cared about their rights in the first place, only your own.

if anyone is to blame for a trump presidency, it's the democratic party and the 2-party system in general. dems could have won if they did less than the bare minimum and just STOPPED ARMING ISRAEL. kamala assumed the protesters saying "no votes for genocide" were bluffing, that she could scare us with the threat of a trump presidency even though her platform really wasn't that different from his. and why would it need to be, when dems have previously gotten away with the same by just pretending to give a shit? the system doesn't care who is enacting the will of AIPAC and all the corporate sponsors; they use different PR strategies to accomplish the same policies.

do people understand how bad the democratic party had to be in order for us to accept the risk of a trump presidency? i remember when trump was elected in 2016. i was working with mostly undocumented students, and i was horrified at the state of the country and scared for our most marginalized communities. Since then, I learned more what the dems have been getting away with, unopposed by liberals because they beat trump and were paying lip service to neoliberal values. biden has kicked out millions more immigrants than trump did. obama started the kids in cages practice, and he launched 10x more drones than bush, with 90% resulting in civilian casualties. I didn't know that shit was going on at the time either, and I know I supported dems in the past. this time, while i'm still terrified and sad, my conscience is clear because the people showed the dems they can't get away with genocide.

I understand people who voted Kamala hoping to reduce harm, especially from people less informed about the dems' atrocities. I was one of them for a while. But I'm having trouble empathizing with the uncritical Kamala supporters who have been harassing people for not supporting their woc girlboss. I know people will unite to resist trump, but if Kamala had won and implemented the same policies Trump would have done, how many of her supporters would have continued to push for change? how many blue MAGA folks would be content with a status quo that allowed for genocide and constant human rights violations and killing the planet, as long as they had a president willing to say "black lives matter" and "love is love" and "climate change is real"?

We all gotta unite to protect our most marginalized now, and while everyone's welcome to join the fight, some of y'all really need to reflect on whether your activism is truly for the people or just for YOUR people. Do you see intersectional activism as a transactional I-scratch-your-back-you-scratch-mine, or do you recognize that all of our struggles are interconnected and none of us are free until all of us are free? I won't treat you like an enemy and I'm always willing to help people learn, but if your solidarity ain't intersectional, if you don't recognize that it's liberation for all, we don't need you treating us like enemies as soon as you're done fighting for yourself.

[sistersgrimm13writes]

With a few hours of sleep between my last post and now, I want to talk about some of the trends that I'm seeing from some popular liberal talking heads and from the mainstream media as a whole regarding Kamala losing to Trump.

- While misogyny and racism certainly played a part in her loss because some people really do just suck, she did not lose primarily because she was a woman or a person of color. That is not the lesson that we should learn from this and should not be a reason to not run a woman/person of color in a future election. We should not give the Democrats this out to use when talking about this loss.

- Gen Z did not move en masse to vote this election cycle and those that did voted pretty predictably along gender/racial lines that we've seen in previous generations. The radicalization of young men in this country by the far right is an issue that isn't talked about too often and absolutely has to be addressed for there to be meaningful change. Keeping young men angry enough with the current institution that they would actively vote against their own best interests in order to dismantle that institution is useful for the right and the current ruling elite. The Dems have to learn to combat this through effective education and actual policy that benefits the younger generation. But they also have to figure out how to invigorate young people to vote as a whole and the best way to do that is to run on popular policies that actually address current issues that young people are facing. We know what those policies are (higher minimum wage, rent caps, ways to make homes obtainable, etc) and need to run on them instead of "vote blue no matter who" and licking the boots of moderates and the right.

- The Harris campaign was terrible. Worse than the Clinton campaign because Trump was an easier candidate to beat this election cycle. He is a shadow of his former self, in poor health physically and mentally, and a proven fucking loser. A large part of this was her blatant disregard and even contempt for Pro-Palestinian voices and the unwillingness of the party as a whole to give a singular inch regarding the genocide of the Palestinian people. Even without that in play, she refused to talk about the failures of the last four years of Biden, of which there were many, and instead said that she would change nothing after a very unpopular presidency. She backed many people, who were already disillusioned with the current administration, into a corner by promising to do fuck all about the systems in place that people overwhelmingly didn't like in the first place.

There is so much to learn for the Democratic Party following this election but if we let them say "oh it was because she was a person of color", "it's because she was a woman", and we refuse to acknowledge that this election was not only winnable, but more so than the previous two elections, we are fucking doomed.

There will be more to learn as exit polls continue to update and we hear from more people post election season, but for now...

Organize. Organize. Organize. If you can, unionize. Keep pushing local activism and bolster your local organizations. Don't let this break your resolve for change. There is a better America, there is hope for a brighter future for our young people and the queer community, but at this point we have to admit that nothing will change unless we can come together in a great enough number to force it. I know you're tired and disheartened and scared and angry. Be those things and fight anyways. Do it scared, do it angry, and remember that there are millions of people doing it with you.

[tubapun]

When you rb posts which are anti-Kamala and seem to be urging US citizens not to vote for her unless they are happy to stand behind the USA's occupation of other countries/war, what is your preferred outcome? Do you want people to abstain from voting at all in November? Or to vote for Donald Trump who is much more pro-military than Harris and the Dems? I don't mean to slander you here. I am just curious of the intention of someone (who appears to be liberal) reposting things like that close to such a contentious election. Thanks.

Yknow I really want to take this in good faith but you folks make it so fucking hard. Believe it or not your options aren't "Trump, Kamala, or Abstain", and acting like they are is the whole goddamn issue. If as many of you whiny "but trump!!" fucks got your good senses about you and voted for someone with morals like the Jill Stein then we could stand half a chance of breaking even a little out of the fascism that we find ourselves in. A country with two choices thst are ultimately the same with a different face is a country with no choices.

And really, is it Anti-Kamala to share videos of her on her campaign trail where she explicitly says she's gonna add more funding to the military? Is it anti-Kamala to share her campaign promise to make the already stupid idea of a border even more concrete? Is it anti-Kamala to share when she shuts down any dissent even from her own party because the idea of serving the people is ridiculous to her when she could be serving the nebulous idea of the Democrats?

I share this shit cause if you want a republic like we have, and yes it's a republic not a democracy, you deserve a well fucking educated voting populace. Not one that acts like its fucking stanning for a pop star. I'd prefer Kamala win over trump, much like I'd prefer losing 4 of my toes to 5. But we cannot let the shit happen like in 2020 where all of you dumb fuck Vote Blue No Matter Who assholes were suddenly fine with kids in cages cause your guy was doing it. Were fine with forgoing science while a pandemic raged on cause it seemed like a victory for your guy. Were fine with pretending any attack on biden was just cause he was old and not cause he was a barely functional racist fuck who was and is actively funding a genocide. You dipshits talked so much about pushing him left but as soon as he was elected you decided any criticism was psyops and election interference because you can't stand the idea that maybe you're complicit in the empire you're a part of.

If you genuinly think my distaste for Kamala means I support TRUMP of all people when every issue I have with her is that she seems to agree with the guy on far too much , then buster I think you might just not be worth the fucking time of day. Go sit on that for a bit and grow a goddamn spine

[the-river-sage]

can't say that i'm particularly a fan of the new Macklemore song that everyone seems to be clamoring about, given that he felt the need to include a couple lines with the lazy (and inaccurate) take laying the blame for the situation almost entirely at Biden's feet and also boast about the counterproductive inaction he will be taking this election by not voting for him. you don't like Biden? fine. you're upset about the situation in Palestine? absolutely justified. but can we fucking NOT with the moral grandstanding to such an extent that it actively causes more fucking problems?

whether you like it or not, come election time you have two options to help shape the direction of this country: you vote Democrat even if you (mistakenly) believe that Biden is a bad candidate, or you vote Republican and support everything that that entails. you don't vote or go third-party? congratulations, you've accomplished nothing other than to feel as if you made a statement by throwing a tantrum when there are tremendous stakes at play. frankly, get off your high horse and check your privilege, cause the difference between a 2nd Biden term and a 2nd Trump term would be massive

some of y'all really out here acting like "there's no difference" between the two candidates and i'm sick of seeing this childish, edgelord apathy. it is 2024 and if you're spending hours on Tumblr or TikTok then you have access to so much information that very clearly demonstrates how false that tired old rhetoric is. and it pisses me off, cause here's how that mentality is going to play out: half a dozen months of "Trump/Biden are the same" and/or "Biden's not worth voting for" or similar -> Trump winning the election and these people being shocked that this happened despite deliberately contributing to sabotaging Dems' chances over this single issue which they are divided on -> acting surprised at the horrific agenda that WILL be carried out under a repeat Trump administration while fully ignoring the role they played in letting it happen -> everyone loses.

and if you think i'm being heartless and just don't care about what's happening in Palestine, kindly go fuck yourself. i've been pro-Palestine since some of y'all were still shitting your diapers and sucking your thumbs. this isn't about not caring about Palestine, this is about recognizing the very real additional harm that would come about if large groups of people decide that "they'll never vote for a politician who supports genocide!" and while you're patting yourself on the back for taking that stance and collecting all the social capital and internet points you get from talking about it constantly, other folks will literally be dying at the hands of freshly enacted Republican legislation.

do not let perfect be the enemy of good. do not pride yourself on some bullshit moral purity of doing nothing wrong by avoiding actions that may not always be 100% good. please, do not be fucking stupid. recognize that politics are not a game and have significant consequences. some of y'all been talking like you really want to fuck around, and i just hope that when November comes... the rest of us aren't gonna have to find out.

[theculturedmarxist]

When people on this website complain about a lack of reading comprehension, you're the kind of person they're talking about.

>First thing to note, "The liberal Patriot" is a right wing blog that denies climate change so clearly @theculturedmarxist is getting his news from only the finest of sources.

And? What does that have to do with the content of the article?

>The article is part of a larger movement which tires to posit that the Democrats are the real racist party and the Republicans are actually the more racially conscious than there democratic peers.

Oh, I see. You have to attack the source, because you don't actually understand what it's saying. Don't worry, I'll explain it to you.

It's not saying that Democrats are "the REAL racist party" (even though they are). It's saying that the Democrats are taking the votes of non-white demographics for granted, and that this puts them into a dangerous electoral position. The author is recommending that the Democrats jettison their view of the white working class voters as essentially racist deplorables, because that view is based on a false understanding, and reaching out to them could put them in a better electoral position.

Which is all true.

>Now that might be weird considering that Trump had a Neo Nazi March in 2017 and an far right attempted coup in 2021, he enacted a horrific migrant policy on the border (one that Biden has barely changed incidentally), regularly praised the confederates, actively opposed the BLM, protests, has a long history of racial dissemination, and keeps associating with Alt Right Figures 9Michael Flynn, Laura Loomer, Steave Bannon, Nike Fuentes, STephen Miller)

Yeah, that's all true. But I like the part where you just gloss over the fact that this horrific racist migrant border policy of Trump's has only "barely changed" under Biden. You also don't mention how Biden's administration has been actively arming a neo-Nazi government that he helped install, has hosted neo-Nazis at the White House, had them speak at the Capitol, and whose government has been essential in their training and upkeep. And I mean, that's just aside from Biden himself, who opposed desegregation and championed the crime bill in the 90s, among other crimes. But I mean, who's counting?

>Now a lot of you might be wondering "Wait, isn't the cultured marxist a communist, why would they be reblogging a right wing thinker" and the answer is that there is a weird type of "leftist" who seem to spend a lot of there time defending far right reactionaries who hate the centrists they also hate, hence why they are so pro Putin

I reblog a lot of outlets and people that I don't necessarily agree with or like for a number of reasons. This article in particular just happens to say something I do agree with and has supplementary information to back it up. I don't really care if they're right wing or climate deniers or whatever, because none of that has any bearing on the article itself.

And furthermore, the vast majority of sources are right wing. Every bourgeois news outlet is right wing by its very nature. Every one of them, CNN, BBC, New York Times, Washington Post, whatever, they're all engaged in some form of mis- or disinformation. Even left wing outlets take positions or hold opinions that I disagree with for one reason or another. If I only used the ones that I agreed with 100%, the blog would be empty.

And like just about everything else you say about me, I'm only "pro Putin" in your empty head.

>Now regarding the idea that Biden can't win 2024, anything possible, but it strikes me as very cocky to be super confident Biden can't win, because the pattern for the last three years has been democrats not liking biden, but voting for him anyway (I can speak to myself as an example). But the CUltured Marxists wants us to believe that because the Dems didn't nominate Cornel West or Biden or something, they are doomed in 2020, which shows a very naïve view of AMerican politics.

I'm confident that Biden won't win in 2024 because of all the things that Biden has, and more importantly hasn't done. Nearly a million people dead by Covid, children still in cages, lost Roe v Wade, increased oil drilling, strikebreaking, instigating a losing war with Russia, involved in a corruption scandal with his deadbeat rapist son—the list goes on and on. There's also the fact that he's increasingly old and frail, and his vice president is an empty suit that absolutely no one has any faith in. Consider also that the White House still enforces strict covid protocols around the president, while Biden's covid policies basically ensures that everyone will eventually get it, and that eventually he's going to get it, and there's a not infinitesimal chance that it's going to kill him. I believe the thought of Kamala being president makes a lot of people justifiably uncomfortable. I suppose that's assuming he chooses to run with her again, but it's not like there's a lot of good candidates to take her place, either.

Actually, nominating Cornel West would probably be a big help to the Democrats. But that's now why I think they're going to lose. As I've repeatedly pointed out, it's because they're promising nothing and choosing to go with the "nothing will fundamentally change" candidate when everything is very obviously in desperate need of changing. And that's a recipe for disaster, because even if they do manage to eke out a victory this time, maintaining the status quo is just going to set them up for electoral disaster in the next election, because things are only going to get worse, and not doing anything to mitigate that or help people is only going to make people vote for someone, anyone else, if only out of pure spite—like what happened in 2016.

>Notice how @theculturedmarxist focuses almost entirely on 2016, and not on 2018, 2020, or most importantly 2022, three elections where democratic dramatically over performed despite having major structural disadvantages.

They "over performed" themselves into a deadlocked congress where they continue to accomplish nothing and only just manage to hang on.

>2020 though, this is where @theculturedmarxist's argument really breaks down. Because Bernie sanders was never able to get more than 25% of the votes in the primary, while Biden got about 52%. If you break down the Democrats by general progressives vs. moderate votes, moderates got 70% of the vote. Which sucks, but clearly the majority of democrats feel more comfortable with Biden's wing of the party.

This is revisionist history. As the post you linked but didn't read or understand enumerates, it's not that Biden just beat Bernie. The Democrats rigged the primary so that Biden would win. It's something Obama said that he would do if it looked like Bernie was going to get the nomination, which it did. The Sandman was the clear favorite so he and the other "party elders" cleared the field.

When Sanders briefly took the lead in February and seemed within reach of racking up an insurmountable lead, party elders panicked. “If you’re a centrist, you have 10 days,” David Rothkopf, a former Clinton official told Financial Times. “You have from now until Super Tuesday and either a bunch of people drop out and there is some move to unify around somebody. Or it’s going to be a runaway [win] for Sanders.” With days to go before Super Tuesday, party elders cleared out the “centrist lane” in a stunning display of party discipline and elite competence. Pete Buttigieg, an AstroTurf political entrepreneur known for his effortless regurgitation of platitudes, and Amy Klobuchar, a seasoned and highly competent senator from Minnesota, were prevailed upon to drop out and throw their weight behind Joe Biden. The operational maneuver was shockingly effective. Although it would be a while before Sanders would throw in the towel, Biden locked up the Democratic nomination on Super Tuesday.

>Then in 2020, Biden didn't just win, he had a blow out. Despite Trump resorting to massive voter suppression, he won the electoral vote by 306 to 232, and won the popular vote by 4.5% , the largest margin in US history, 7.5 million more votes. Clearly most Americans supported Biden.

Hey that's great and all but Hilldawg won the popular vote in 2016 too for all the good it did her. The reality is that Biden only barely won. In Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Nevada, and Georgia, it was neck and neck. Had the wind blown the other way the victory could have just as easily gone to Trump. And that was even with the considerable help Biden had with the media quashing the rape allegations and the laptop story.

And just like other Democrat assumptions, it's impossible to say from a simple vote what motivated it. Were most Americans for Biden, or just against Trump?

>But the biggest evidence against the "Biden is unelectable" theory is the 2022 midterm, which almost everybody predicted to be a massacre of democrat. Inflation was high, Biden's approvals numbers were down, the sitting party always losses seats in a midterm, Afghanistan was a fuck up, Covid Response not great, and 50/50 split in the Senate. And Dems...did fantastically, the best midterm performance in the modern age if you discount the post 9/11 midterm of 2002. That is why Dems are sticking with Biden, because he delivered a very impressive victory.

"Impressive victory?" The Democrats gained one senator and lost control of the House. How exactly did Biden "deliver" this "impressive victory?" And what have the Democrats done to capitalize on it now that they have a majority in the senate? Biden's whole justification for voting for him was that he was the one to "reach across the aisle" and get shit done, so why hasn't he been able to get any shit done?

>There is a reason why Dems, including Sanders, AOC and Warren, are rallying around Biden, because electorally its the better risk, especially if Trump wins the Republican Primary.

This is the conclusion your "mature and nuanced view of politics" brings you to, huh? Considering Biden's polling at basically the same numbers as Trump I don't think he's as safe a bet as you believe he is.

>A bunch of stupid bullshit.

I'm going to ignore most of the rest because it's just a bunch of nonsense you made up.

>For the Record, The Culturedmarxists predicted that Sanders would win the primary here

Actually I debunk the talking points Timothy Egan brings up in his dogshit article. It was also published on January when Bernie was the clear frontrunner until the DNC fucked him.

>Now according to TheCulturedMarxist in there post here, Biden being nominated was basically ensures Trump was going to win

That's a reposted article from another website. It says so right at the fucking beginning.

By Anis Shivani, whose recent political books include Why Did Trump Win?, Confronting American Fascism, and A Radical Human Rights Solution to the Immigration Problem. He is the author of many critically-acclaimed books of fiction, poetry, and criticism, including, most recently, A History of the Cat in Nine Chapters or Less

And like I already pointed out, he very nearly did win. And like Shivani points out in his article, Biden won in spite of how dogshit he and the Democrats are, not because of how much everyone supposedly loves them.

>They also predicts Trump is going to win here

Hm, yeah, I did. I expected Trump from 2016 to tear Biden apart like wet toilet paper, but strangely we didn't get a repeat of that performance. I wonder if cognitive impairment from covid had anything to do with it.

>And here...

I tell a liberal to shut the fuck up, which they should, and link a broken thread in the chapo subreddit.

>And here, where he says that the Dems "deserve to lose in November"

lol yeah I did, and I was right, for all the reasons I mentioned. And all the reasons the OP mentioned too, actually, considering all the shit they list that Biden was supposed to save us from has come true thanks to him.

You vote as if YOU were BLACK.

Biden's increased police funding and is currently contemplating waging war on Niger.

You vote as if YOU were DISABLED.

Biden's covid policies have let the disease run rampant, infecting tens of millions of people and inflicting them with Long Covid, leaving millions of people disabled. So, that's just great.

You vote as if YOU were a brown-skinned IMMIGRANT.

Biden railed against Trump’s immigration policies, now defends them in courts

You vote as if YOU were LGBTQ+.

I've gone over what Biden's done for LBGTQ+ and it's really not much since they have to include stuff like "gave Pete Buttigieg a job and tweeted happy birthday to all the gays on twitter once."

You vote as if YOU were the TARGET of Neo-Nazis and the KKK.

Biden and his party are currently sending billions of dollars with of weapons to Neo-Nazis in Ukraine, so great job there.

You vote as if YOU might need HEALTHCARE.

Biden ran in opposition of Medicare For All.

You vote as if YOUR CHILDREN might be killed some day in a MASS-SHOOTING.

Still happening. No doubt in spite of Biden's best efforts.

You vote as if YOU were a woman dealing with an UNPLANNED PREGNANCY or DEFECTIVE FETUS.

White House Privately Signaling It’s Moving Forward With Anti-Abortion Court Pick

Oops.

You vote as if YOU or your loved ones might someday be adversely impacted by UNMITIGATED CLIMATE CHANGE.

Thank you, Uncle Joe!

>Here he says that Trump is going to be gone and that Republicans helped Biden win 2020

Oh, more reading comprehension problems.

See, what I actually said was that Trump wasn't the source of all these violent extremists, that he himself was an opportunist capitalizing on those groups, and now that he was presumably gone, they'd start looking for someone that actually believes what they believe to lead them.

And yeah, the Republicans did work to undermine and unseat Trump, because he dominates the Republican party, and the establishment figures in the party don't like that. The Republican Party wanted him gone just as badly as the Democratic Party for a number of reasons.

>Here they seems to get cranky about dems disliking the electoral college instead of "Getting people to want to vote them" which is weird because Biden won the popular vote by the largest margin in US history.

What I'm actually saying is that Democrats should be putting their energy into practical and popular policies like universal healthcare or providing people with badly needed services instead of empty rhetoric about abolishing the electoral college, which the DNC doesn't even want. They refuse to even abolish the filibuster, which is actually entirely within their power to do. They also wouldn't need to abolish the electoral college if they gave people a reason to vote for them, you know, by providing them the things they want.

>Here They says that Trump was more proactive at stopping the Virus than Biden. Now Biden's response to covid has been pretty bad, but saying its worse than Trump is pretty comical when you remember that Trump inspired riots to try to stop shut downs.

Biden's response was to stop shutdowns, stop paying people to stay home, downplay non-medical interventions, deny aerosol transmission, tell everyone they'd be fine if they got the vaccine, force a "return to normal" and then declared the whole thing over. Four times as many people have died after Biden and "the adults in the room" took over, and thousands of people are still dying every week.

>This deeply angry post here I think is super revealing because it kinda shows where his political views have frozen, he is basically stuck in 2016 and hasn't evolved as a person since, retreating further and further away from electorilism rather than admit weakness or being wrong.

Except I'm not wrong. Democrats scapegoating Jill Stein voters because their shitty candidate couldn't win against the Pied Piper candidate her own team promoted for her to run against is extremely shitty, and they and all the rest of the "Blue No Matter Who" bunch can go and get fucked to death.

>Also I think they might have been on some Chan boards, notice the writing here "Do the world a favor and kill yourselves for fuck’s sake, you worthless, entitled weaklings."

Uh oh, looks like I'm guilty of further thoughtcrimes 😣

>This one here is very interesting, because he argues that the left in the Left in the United States is basically dead and that there is hope in communism. 4 years later we do see a much more active and powerful left, but it is a left defined by the BLM protests not from the most toxic element of the Sanders fanbase.

Communism is the only hope. BLM sputtered and died and the Democrats helped kill it, just like they did with Occupy. The actual radicals got fucking murdered and the "founders" got bought by the Ford foundation. Hope this helps.

And all the rest of your post is just make believe bullshit that I'm not going to bother with. So in conclusion

Hang all Democrats.

Joseph Stalin did absolutely nothing wrong.

Communism will win.

Democrats lately have been basking in good news. The fourth Trump indictment! Continued success for abortion rights (the defeat of the Ohio referendum)! Good news on “Bidenomics”  (slowing inflation and strong job creation)!

The sentiment seems to be: we got this! How could we lose to a candidate (assuming it’s Trump) who’s under a blizzard of legal scrutiny for undermining democracy and represents a party that wants to take away women’s right to choose—especially when we, the good guys, are doing such a great job with the economy?

This “how can we lose?” attitude is uncomfortably reminiscent of Democrats’ attitude in 2016. Then too they thought they couldn’t lose. And yet they did.

Perhaps it’s time to take out an insurance policy. It may be the case that a multiply-indicted Trump is now toxic to enough voters and abortion rights such a strong motivator that even a candidate with Biden’s weaknesses will beat him easily. But it might not and that’s where the insurance policy comes in.

Consider that right now the race looks very, very close. The RealClearPolitics poll average has Biden ahead of Trump by a slender four-tenths of a percentage point. If that was Biden’s national lead on election day, he’d probably lose the presidency due to electoral college bias that favors Republicans.

In the latest Quinnipiac poll, Biden has a one-point lead over Trump consistent with the running average. Among white working-class (noncollege) voters, he’s behind by 34 points, considerably worse than he did in 2020. If Trump (or another Republican) does manage to prevail in 2024, we can be fairly sure that a pro-GOP surge among these voters will have something to do with it.

States of Change simulations show that, all else equal, a strong white working class surge in 2024 would deliver the election to the GOP. Even a small one could potentially do the trick. In an all-else-equal context, I estimate just a one-point increase in Republican support among the white working class and a concomitant one-point decrease in Democratic support (for a 2-point margin swing) would deliver Arizona, Georgia and Wisconsin (and the election) to the Republicans. Make it a 2-point increase in GOP support and you can throw in Pennsylvania too.

So an insurance policy to prevent such a swing is in order.

The problem: these are very unhappy voters. In the Quinnipiac poll, white working-class voters give Biden an overall 25 percent approval rating versus 70 percent disapproval and 72 percent have an unfavorable opinion of him. On handling the economy, Biden’s rating is even worse—24 percent approval and 73 percent disapproval. Just 20 percent say the economy is excellent or good, compared to 79 percent who say it is not so good or poor. By 63 to 16 percent, these voters believe the economy is getting worse not better. Evidently they haven’t yet heard the good news about Bidenomics.

The temptation among Democrats is to ascribe the stubborn resistance of these voters to Democratic appeals and openness to those of Trump and right populists to misinformation from Fox News and the like and, worse, to the fundamentally racist, reactionary nature of this voter group. The roots of this view go back to the aftermath of the 2016 election.

As analysts sifted through the wreckage of Democratic performance in 2016 trying to understand where all the Trump voting had come from, some themes began to emerge. One was geographical. Across county-level studies, it was clear that low educational levels among whites was a very robust predictor of shifts toward Trump. These studies also indicated that counties that swung toward Trump tended to be dependent on low-skill jobs, relatively poor performers on a range of economic measures and had local economies particularly vulnerable to automation and offshoring. Finally, there was strong evidence that Trump-swinging counties tended to be literally “sick” in the sense that their inhabitants had relatively poor physical health and high mortality due to alcoholism, drug abuse, and suicide.

The picture was more complicated when it came to individual level characteristics related to Trump voting, especially Obama-Trump voting. There were a number of correlates with Trump voting. They included some aspects of economic populism—opposition to cutting Social Security and Medicare, suspicion of free trade and trade agreements, taxing the rich—as well as traditional populist attitudes like anti-elitism and mistrust of experts. But the star of the show, so to speak, was a variable labelled “racial resentment” by political scientists, which many studies showed bore a strengthened relationship to Republican presidential voting in 2016.

This variable is a scale created from questions like: “Irish, Italian, Jewish, and many other minorities overcame prejudice and worked their way up. Blacks should do the same without any special favors.” The variable is widely and uncritically employed by political scientists to indicate racial animus despite the obvious problem that statements such as these correspond closely to a generic conservative view of avenues to social mobility. And indeed political scientists Riley Carney and Ryan Enos have shown that responses to questions like these change very little if you substitute “Nepalese” or “Lithuanians” for blacks. That implies the questions that make up the scale tap views that are not at all specific to blacks. Carney and Enos term these views “just world belief” which sounds quite a bit different from racial resentment.

But in the aftermath of the Trump election, researchers continued to use the same scale with the same name and the same interpretation with no caveats. The strong relationship of the scale to Trump voting was proof, they argued, that Trump support, including vote-switching from Obama to Trump, was simply a matter of activating underlying racism and xenophobia. Imagine though how these studies might have landed like if they had tied Trump support to activating just world belief, which is an eminently reasonable interpretation of their star variable, instead of racial resentment. The lack of even a hint of interest in exploring this alternative interpretation strongly suggests that the researchers’ own political beliefs were playing a strong role in how they chose to pursue and present their studies.

In short, they went looking for racism—and they found it.

Other studies played variations on this theme, adding variables around immigration and even trade to the mix, where negative views were presumed to show “status threat” or some other euphemism for racism and xenophobia. As sociologist Stephen Morgan has noted in a series of papers, this amounts to a labeling exercise where issues that have a clear economic component are stripped of that component and reduced to simple indicators of unenlightened social attitudes. Again, it seems clear that researchers’ priors and political beliefs were heavily influencing both their analytical approach and their interpretation of results.

And there is an even deeper problem with the conventional view. Start with a fact that was glossed over or ignored by most studies: trends in so-called racial resentment went in the “wrong” direction between the 2012 and 2016 election. That is, fewer whites had high levels of racial resentment in 2016 than 2012. This make racial resentment an odd candidate to explain the shift of white voters toward Donald Trump in the 2016 election.

Political scientists Justin Grimmer and William Marble investigated this conundrum intensively by looking directly at whether an indicator like racial resentment really could explain, or account for, the shift of millions of white votes toward Trump. The studies that gave pride of place to racial resentment as an explanation for Trump’s victory did no such accounting; they simply showed a stronger relationship between this variable and Republican voting in 2016 and thought they’d provided a complete explanation.

They had not. When you look at the actual population of voters and how racial resentment was distributed in 2016, as Grimmer and Marble did, it turns out that the racial resentment explanation simply does not fit what really happened in terms of voter shifts. A rigorous accounting of vote shifts toward Trump shows instead that they were primarily among whites, especially low education whites, with moderate views on race and immigration, not whites with high levels of racial resentment. In fact, Trump actually netted fewer votes among whites with high levels of racial resentment than Mitt Romney did in 2012.

Grimmer and Marble did a followup study with Cole Tanigawa-Lau that included data from the 2020 election. The study was covered in a New York Times article by Thomas Edsall. In the article, Grimmer described the significance of their findings:

Our findings provide an important correction to a popular narrative about how Trump won office. Hillary Clinton argued that Trump supporters could be placed in a “basket of deplorables.” And election-night pundits and even some academics have claimed that Trump’s victory was the result of appealing to white Americans’ racist and xenophobic attitudes. We show this conventional wisdom is (at best) incomplete. Trump’s supporters were less xenophobic than prior Republican candidates’ [supporters], less sexist, had lower animus to minority groups, and lower levels of racial resentment. Far from deplorables, Trump voters were, on average, more tolerant and understanding than voters for prior Republican candidates… [The data] point to two important and undeniable facts. First, analyses focused on vote choice alone cannot tell us where candidates receive support. We must know the size of groups and who turns out to vote. And we cannot confuse candidates’ rhetoric with the voters who support them, because voters might support the candidate despite the rhetoric, not because of it.

So much for the racial resentment explanation of Trump’s victory. Not only is racial resentment a misnamed variable that does not mean what people think it means, it literally cannot account for the actual shifts that occurred in the 2016 election. Clearly a much more complex explanation for Trump’s victory was—or should have been—in order, integrating negative views on immigration, trade and liberal elites with a sense of unfairness rooted in just world belief. That would have helped Democrats understand why voters in Trump-shifting counties, whose ways of life were being torn asunder by economic and social change, were so attracted to Trump’s appeals.

Such understanding was nowhere to be found, however, in Democratic ranks. The racism-and-xenophobia interpretation quickly became dominant, partly because it was in many ways simply a continuation of the approach Clinton had taken during her campaign and that most Democrats accepted. Indeed, it became so dominant that simply to question the interpretation reliably opened the questioner to accusations that he or she did not take the problem of racism seriously enough.

We are still living in that world. Scratch a Democrat today and you will find lurking not far beneath the surface—if beneath the surface at all—a view of white working-class voters and their populist, pro-Trump leanings as reflecting these voters’ unyielding racism and xenophobia.

This is neither substantively justified nor politically productive. Democrats desperately need that insurance policy for 2024 and getting rid of these attitudes toward 40 percent of the electorate (much more in key states!) should be part of it. Think of it as a down payment on the “de-Brahminization” of the Democratic Party. This attitude adjustment might irritate some of their activist supporters, but considering the stakes, that seems like a small price to pay for a potentially vital insurance policy.

[jaythelay]

And people still don't seem to understand if you want something to be worked on, ya gotta put some effort into it.

Except putting effort into it is bad because when you conceive a bias based entirely on fear it's easy to simply look at criticism and protests and call it regressive. When the reality is there is no alternative way to get attention, it's all been tried to death and you rejected it.

Discussions and debates? Video and photo? Stories and history? Ya'll ignored it because it hurt Biden's chances. Not a single other reason. (apathetic and commited racism actually is another)

Ya'll actively refuse to listen to reasonable arguments and instead make up strawmen that are not simply laughable, but counter-productive as it creates a bigger rift in the voter-base. If you won't listen, people will make you. Simple as.

As far as Kamala, I got higher hopes for her handling Palestine, same with Walz, but you're absolutely braindead to say protesting that we stop sending our tax dollars to bomb children is a bad thing. It's why I can't reasonably vote dem, if the party and voter is so unwilling to combat genocide, then there's no party to work with.

It's easier to be anti-genocide than pro-genocide. Seriously. You wouldn't have to be confused to keep an image up. You'd simply speak truth from understanding. Ya'll don't and it's why it'll cost you a landslide victory. Plain and simple ya can't act like it's actually happening but not a problem, and flip flop to it's not happening and hamas is a problem, depending on the argument. It's baffling in a republican way.

Just saying. All R's call it a genocide and are giddy about it, constantly saying to finish the job. Dump says it's a genocide and ya'll agree he would commit a genocide. So. Why pretend there isn't a genocide now? If Israel is fully willing to genocide with help from Dump, why wouldn't they with Dems and how the fuck does any of that mean it's not a genocide?

I've had people flip flop like this in the middle of arguments. Understand this is not normal behavior for anyone. Discuss. Don't lie. Don't be Republican.

If ya want more votes, ya start by showing you care about people more than your in-group. You don't use LGBT people as a meat shield towards criticising Dear Leader and a fuckin Genocide.

Really don't know what is so confusing to people about this. If ya want anti-genocider voters, then start being anti-genocide. Stop pretending you have to Not Vote to be Anti-Genocide and suddenly it makes sense, you strawmanning idiots.

Otherwise just don't acknowledge them? Just silly that it works and they still pretend otherwise. Ya'll admit several times over it's a genocide when it comes up, but when convenient it's just a "war with hamas" it's all so painfully republican.

Just saying, this same crowd will still be bitching this somehow hurts dem's chances midway through Kamala's term as an excuse to not demand better than Genocide. Just silly cruelness you expect from R's and one most will reject anyone for doing. Ya'll know R's don't want to admit Dump is on Epstein's list because it'll hurt his chances right? You're doing the same thing here.

Be anti-genocide, vote Kamala, demand better than Genocide. There is no other rules ya'll can strawman.

Ya'll dems gotta fucking think. Once. Shit.

[jaythelay]

You lose nothing being anti-genocide. It's genuinely incredible people want to act like that means Dems will lose, but really, it shows why there exists people who don't want to join voting dem, when it's only a genocide if the other guy does it, only bad if the other guy does it, or doesn't exist if your guy does it, there's nothing to gain in being pro-genocide but the bliss of ignorance.

R's want to use the court to win, ya'll need enough votes that becomes unrealistic. Why push away anti-genocider votes instead of demanding better than genocide I will never know. But the fact has always been you can criticise dear leader and vote for them. If genocide costs them the vote, then ya'll should've told them to take it off the damn list. Not act like R's.

Seriously I can't believe people don't want to say Genocide Bad No Matter Who because they want Genocide to be tied to Dem's image. Just fuckin stop making dems a bad option for people? Then you'll get your fucking votes. But otherwise why the HELL would I trust you actually care about minorities in america when you're actively pro-genocide to "protect" them? What minority told you that you have to be pro-genocide to protect them?

Shit's illogical, that's why you'll never understand anti-genociders, because your entire mindset is illogical in the first damn place. There's nothing to lose being anti-genocide. If you decide not to vote, that's on you and dems. Not anti-genociders. If you think the only way to combat genocide is not to vote, you're an idiot, and I am talking to pro-genociders that refuse to cooperate even slightly with basic humanity.

You. Can. Vote. For. Kamala. And. Criticise. Our. Involvement. With. Genocide.

To pretend otherwise is genuinely embarrassing. Both of you. All of you.

Why not all the good, and not aiding genocide? Why not? No, before anything else, answer me that.

Nobody has given a good reason. Just bullshit political ones that tell you morality is bullshit and we should just kill for the fun of it.

Nobody is forcing Kamala or Biden to aid a genocide. Not a single element other than Americans supporting it. There is nothing to lose being anti-genocide. You can vote for Kamala and be anti-genocide and I cannot believe I have to tell you fucking children this, again, and again, and again, and ag-

Clown shit to pretend otherwise.

Stop pushing voters away and cooperate with them. Demand better than Genocide. Nothing is stopping you but your own dumbass.

This schoolyard shit is embarrassing.

[siryouarebeingmocked]

I explained my point, explicitly, and it's not getting through.

Even if BLM didn't spread COVID - and I'm not sure you can credit masks more than people staying home to avoid riots - it was breaking most of the Rules.

You can't come back later and go "look, they didn't spread" without effectively admitting the Rules the left supported before and after the protests were mostly unneeded.

The same rules the left yelled at people for disobeying, unless they were BLM.

I said one line about BLM. One line. You responded to that one line and nothing else. So I responded to your response.

And then it snowballed, because I had to correct these persistent misconceptions about me on your part. Like your assumption that I'm anti-vaccine, which isn't based on anything I've said in this thread. I'm simply talking about your side's inconsistent standards.

>It’s antivaxxers/antimaskers who want it three ways regarding covid; it’s either covid is a Democratic hoax completely made up, or it’s real but made in a secret lab by Fauci himself like a comic book villain and super deadly, or covid is “just the flu”. Rightwingers and other anti-science idiots couldn’t decide which to stick with. If that sounds smug, I dunno what to tell you?

"NO U" is not a counterargument, especially when I'm not even a right-winger.

Speaking of which, has it occurred to you that the American right is made up of tens of millions of people who often have wildly different opinions on various issues?

Heck, I think you managed to get 2/3 wrong. Some people say (mostly) Dems exaggerated a minor threat and COVID is more akin to the flu than something that justified shutting society down, and some say Fauci contributed to the virality of the strain that leaked from a lab and then profited off the hysteria.

That's not a comic-book villain, that's just...a government official, covering their rear. Weird how you imply oil companies are profiteering, but Fauci can't be wrong or corrupt.

Hilarious how you imply you're on the pro-science side when you consistently fail to grok my plain English arguments made right in front of you, and keep desperately making entirely unjustified assumptions so you can find some way to attack me instead of my arguments.

>#hesitate to respond#oil companies are making record profits but who cares let’s try to cyber bully some random person online cuz biden was mentioned

Ah, yes, I was "cyberbullying" you by...responding to your public post defending Biden because I randomly saw it on someone else's tumblr, and responding to a thread in which you keep making responses, directly to me, while not actually defending Biden.

Clearly it was my fault by responding to your confusion about the only part of my post you actually seemed to be concerned about.

All you had to do is ask me to stop. Or stop responding. Just ignore me. You can still do either of those. Even though I'm going to stop anyway.

And, of course, "record profits" somehow means Biden isn't responsible for the oil price hike even though he actively opposed domestic oil production from his first day in office, which would've made oil cheaper using the exact same 'supply and demand' logic in your meme.

Amazing how it took so long for oil and gas prices to rise even though those prices are heavily based on futures, which means projected trends. Such as more people using gas as lockdowns eased. Which started happening, what, summer 2021? Spring?

Biden also reversed Trump's oil sanctions on Russia. Which would give Putin more motive to start a war. Which he did. Which also affects gas prices. Biden himself said the war was going to increase the cost of gas.

He didn't take credit for the war, or discuss his previous actions, oddly enough.

The short version is, you posted something from someone on your side because it played to your bias. You couldn't actually defend it with canned arguments, so you took every single opportunity available to try and change the subject and score points with one liners, until you couldn't dodge anymore.

At which point, your argument amounted to "nuh-uh!"

I think you're wrong, but don't even hate you. I just feel...pity.

Good day.

“Tyranny is when high gas prices.” — some rightwing chudling who can’t see that high gas prices is due to capitalism so it must be Aunteefuh General Joe Biden’s fault.