Sure. It could be. Heck even three things could be true at much. Maybe even three ignorami all easily manipulated by their propaganda de jour. And its not like I’m new to this little panty-bundle pet issue you choose to editorially moderate around. We all see you. We all see what you are doing and have been doing around this issue for years. Just like we see Jordan Lund for what they do. Or Ruud. Or squid.

The issue to me isn’t the disagreement: its your refusal to have it and to use your moderator powers to suppress conversations which you can’t actually engage in, in a public manner, and expect to convince people to come to your side. And what it does, the way its almost exclusive to one particular pet issue: it dramatically weakens your stance.

Any point you could possibly be making which might actually be convincing becomes basically meaningless because you can’t do it rhetorically. You choose to not allow for it. Just like Squid coudlnt defend zionism rhetorically, and so they abused the power of moderation; just like Jordan Lund and their defense of establishment poltiics. These are your peers. These are who you share a bench with when you choose to engage in this manner.

If your arguments were really good and convincing, you wouldn’t need to editorialize via moderation. When you do what you do, it says more about the weakness of your perspective than it does show any kind of strength.

Two things can be true at the same time. They can be a vibed up shitlib. You can be a moderator trying to use your power to cultivate a narrow and specific interpretation of world events.

Removed by mod

And the same hogs who eat up the anti-Hasan rhetoric eat this up too.

Not really relevant, polling anyways. Not like he’s up for election and pretending he gave a shit about anyone other than himself, well youre probably part of the problem if youve have given that narrative any wind.

What does he care? He’s got what he needed.

Schumer and Jefferies are going to sell the left out for massive right-wing funding in this campaign cycle and the next. Mark it.

Your enemy is Democrats.

Came here to say… Fuckin duh.

Ahh… “nuance”…

Gj Wisconsin. Ya fekken blew it.

Yeah I saw the potato/ tomato comment. If you just getting going and need quick-reward for time invested, you really can’t beat kale and mustard greens. You’ll get food you can eat fast, and it will be steady and continuous. You don’t need any special equipment like cages and you don’t need to wait a whole season for results.

Mustard greens and kale.

I believe it was Martin O’mally who tried to get “Carnival Barker” to stick as an insult to Trump. It didn’t work. It made him look weak, foolish. Someone maladroit at using insults. Someone not actually willing to draw blood or do damage in a fight. This kind of petty, high browed insulation of an insult. Its for New York Magazine readers. Its for Third Way neoliberals who still want you to value their Ivy League education, even though its cost you any chance at a middle class life.

If Ossof wants to land a body blow, call Trump a child rapist; say into a microphone that Donald J. Trump rapes children and that his supporters support a pedophile. You can’t soft roll a fight. If you are going to go this way in tactics, you go fully. You can’t halfway do it. And it has to be in a way that shocks and embarrasses Trumps supporters. Not your own.

Like having the dumbest person you know tell you they aren’t going to call any more.

No. Shut the fuck up. Please don’t fucking run any fucking campaigns.

We’re actually turning the tide right now and its absolutely in no thanks to the kind of imbecilic, infantilizing fucking approach you are advocating for. We’re turning the tide because campaigns have largely rejected the kinds of politics you are advocating for because it keeps fucking losing. Its a fucking loser’s approach to campaigning.

The tide is turning because, like what should have happened in 2016, by focusing on policy; by focusing on making a material difference in peoples lives, we can actually motivate them to show up. If we go backwards to what you advocate for, we fucking continue to lose. Please stop advocating that we fucking lose.

Yeah and its a stupid fucking point. Its point which results in less understanding of how things work, not more.

A point which which should be thrown into the trash and disregarded in 2016, and instead, we’re still dealing with the world the manufacturers of that point have decided to create.

I mean are you making that as an argument to support this kind of campaigning? Like I seriously want to know because at face value, it seems like what you are saying.

And it doesn’t fucking work. What works to get Democratic voters to vote for a Democratic candidate is a different set of things than what works to get Republican voters to vote for a Republican candidate.

And not understanding the above, its why the Democratic party, in its “mainstream Democrat”, in its core identity: Its a party of fucking losers. Its a party of people who lose elections because they don’t actually want to have Democratic voters as voters. They wish they had Republicans for voters. They WORK to make their own voting base as vapid and stupid, and accepting of platitudes as Republican voters. Its why they campaign with the like of Liz-FUCKING-Cheney.

So yeah. I mean your response has some meaning, to be sure, but probably not what you intended.

This was the Hillary/ Pence approach in 2016. I’ve heard others being impressed with Ossoff. Can’t say I really get it. Gonna put it out there though that this approach didn’t work for neither Hillary or Pence.

Fun little article, but in my head I saw the “What year is it!?!” meme, because its just like. The number of people still living in gaslit rooms of their own design around the role of Democrats and the DNC and their role in ushering in fascism.

Its like, you can’t really blame fascists for being fascists? Or like, a leopard wont change its spots, Or rather, your only option to deal with fascists is to eliminate them. And you can’t do that with Democrats when they’re always going to try and play ball with them; when they see fascists as better partners to their agenda than working people.

The problem isn’t the fascists is the point. Fascists are very easily beatable. But not when you have liberals willing to defend them and the structures and institutions fascists depend on.

The corpse is basically in a permanent “present” vote, or even less then that? Because it can delay quorum?