The Democrats’ botched 2024 autopsy doesn’t just leave out Gaza. It also simply pretends the left-populist upsurge embodied by Zohran Mamdani isn’t happening, while coveting its achievements.
I’m not upset. I’m not who down voted you. Hell, I’ll up vote you to restore balance to the force.
But since Martin commissioned the report from his buddy, that seems like a significant lapse in judgement. Not fatal, but concerning.
And your constant simping for the man is just a tiny bit grating. I hope you’re right, but it’s alway you, and only you, making those points. Again concerning.
Sigh, so that’s who you are. Whatever. The glimmer of hope you’ve been furiously peddling just got that bit dimmer.
Did you think this was a super important rare thing that is never done and a huge deal?
Or…
Are you aware (win or lose) a report like this is always done?
The problem is with who was tasked with making the report. If it had been commissioned before your Big Daddy took power, and he had to deal with a sub-standard report and what to do with it, yeah, bad day at the office. But he commissioned it from this friend of his and that is concerning.
That means he’s not just someone having to clean up the mess, he’s part of the reason there is a mess in the first place.
Like I said, not fatal, but concerning.
Wait, are you Martin? I have a hard time seeing why anyone else would simp for him quite this hard. And do so entirely alone.
I quoted the article. I’d love to see some evidence that it was wrong. That it was Martin’s predecessor who commissioned the e:report, or, at the very least, that this wasn’t “a friend of his”.
Edit: if the article got those facts wrong, that sounds a lot like libel.
I’m not upset. I’m not who down voted you.
Hell, I’ll up vote you to restore balance to the force.But since Martin commissioned the report from his buddy, that seems like a significant lapse in judgement. Not fatal, but concerning.
And your constant simping for the man is just a tiny bit grating. I hope you’re right, but it’s alway you, and only you, making those points. Again concerning.
I think you’re confused still…
Did you think this was a super important rare thing that is never done and a huge deal?
Or…
Are you aware (win or lose) a report like this is always done?
Edit:
And since you care enough about votes to bring it up, I downvoted you for “glazing”. And completely deriding the conversation.
You said “I’m not upset”…
But I think it’s because you don’t understand the words you’re seeing…
Sigh, so that’s who you are. Whatever. The glimmer of hope you’ve been furiously peddling just got that bit dimmer.
The problem is with who was tasked with making the report. If it had been commissioned before your Big Daddy took power, and he had to deal with a sub-standard report and what to do with it, yeah, bad day at the office. But he commissioned it from this friend of his and that is concerning.
That means he’s not just someone having to clean up the mess, he’s part of the reason there is a mess in the first place.
Like I said, not fatal, but concerning.
Wait, are you Martin? I have a hard time seeing why anyone else would simp for him quite this hard. And do so entirely alone.
So…
You still haven’t looked into what actually happened?
You’re just super sure the billionaires have a valid reason to put you against the DNC?
I quoted the article. I’d love to see some evidence that it was wrong. That it was Martin’s predecessor who commissioned the e:report, or, at the very least, that this wasn’t “a friend of his”.
Edit: if the article got those facts wrong, that sounds a lot like libel.