“We can’t give everyone a trial!”

Smash cut to 250 years of giving everyone a trial.

“Fighting Democrats might get likes online, but it’s not what restores majorities,” she added.

There are currently 2 vacant seats in Congress, which won’t be filled until the fall, left empty by Democrats who died in office. We’re not going to restore majorities by electing people who keep dropping dead.

-Writes seven replies to three different users defending bigoted remarks about Muslims.-

“Boy, everyone else is really obsessed with Muslim stuff, huh?”

Really hard to take your pivot to, “All religion is bad, actually,” seriously when you explicitly brought up Muslims and continue to discuss Muslims as a monolith while breaking down Christians into subcategories like, “Evangelical,” or,.“right-wing.” Why not just say, “the Christian world doesn’t care about you or anyone that disagrees with their doctrines?” Why continue to carefully parse your language to specify which Christian groups you consider bad, while making no distinctions between Muslims? Why is it that, of the three things in your post that I pointed out were incorrect and ill-informed, this is the only thing you want to argue about? (You don’t actually have to answer. It’s very obvious it’s because you’re a bigot.)

Christian extremists in this country have rolled back a women’s right to an abortion and are now working on eliminating no-fault divorce, but hey, you do you, bigot.

American Muslims, in line with general public attitudes in the United States, have become much more accepting of homosexuality over recent years…In a July 2017 poll, Muslims who say homosexuality should be accepted by society clearly outnumber those who say it should be discouraged (52% versus 33%), a level of acceptance similar to American Protestants (52% in 2016). Source

So weird that you distinguish between Christians and Christian fundamentalists but assume all Muslims are fundamentalists. It’s almost like you have some sort of bias or prejudice against Muslims. It’s like you’re a person who has bigoted views. Wonder if there’s a name for that?

LOL, yes, you got an ad hominem attack in response to blatant bigotry. Comparing all Muslims to white supremacists doesn’t warrent debate, but it does deserve ridicule and contempt. You also ignored a bunch of facts that contradicted your wildly inaccurate statements on who was promoting identity politics, which factions of the party were actually standing up to billionaires, and how successful the Sanders/AOC tour is in middle America, but those challenged your worldview, so you couldn’t acknowledge them. Anyway, keep punching at the left-wing of the party while the Democrats try to run the same strategy put Donald Trump in the Whitehouse twice. I’m sure you’ll change the world by losing every election!

Yeah, I’m an old fuddy duddy who thinks that identity politics is a losing battle, maybe if everyone can get under the umbrella of the idea that billionaires are working to ruin this country?

If that’s how you feel, you’re supporting the wrong people. It was centrists who turned to identity politics to hide their lack of an economic platform. Remember when Hillary said breaking up the big banks won’t end racism? Remember when the new DNC chair said they would still take money from good billionaires? If you want Democrats to focus on the billionaires ruining our country, AOC’s your best bet.

I love Bernie Sanders, god bless him, but AOC and Bernie spreading whatever message they are is falling on deaf ears, the ears of middle America.

10K showed up for them in Michigan. 12.5K people showed up for them in Idaho. 30k showed up for them in a Trump district in Montana. Doesn’t seem like it’s falling in deaf ears, but maybe your right, and the Democrats should just not try to win any states in the middle of the country. I’m sure that’s a great strategy.

What does AOC stand for exactly? Just the typical Gen Z talking points? “We gotta support drag queens in libraries!”

You could take your average everyday Muslim and a white supremacist and ask them both how they feel about women/jewish people/gay people and you’d get the same answer.

Get fucked, bigot.

They’re leaving a more divided place where the middle of both parties has been eroded and each year, big bipartisan legislation seems a more elusive goal.

Calling bull-fucking-shit on this, “both parties,” line. We just saw Schumer roll over and play dead for the worst budget deal in Senate history. 4 years ago, the Democrats let all of the most progressive portions of the BBB get hollowed out by 2 centrist Democrats. The Democratic, “middle,” hasn’t eroded, they’re calling all the shots.

This woman also said, “You violated the law, you are not entitled to due process," because she apparently doesn’t know what due process is.

Yeah, this is common on all issues. Political hacks are adept at turning things into partisan issues with branding when we all agree on them. Ask a conservative if they like Socialism and they’ll say hell no, but ask them if they support labor unions, minimum wages, social security, UBI, etc., you’ll find lots of support.

It’s the same with guns; gun control is a scary plot by the left to take away your guns, but sure, they support reasonable measures universal background checks, permits, and restrictions in certain large-capacity weapons. Just so long as it’s not gun control!

Do me a favor and search, “FDR New Deal.”

TL;DR: the filibuster. The thing the Democrats say they can’t abolish because they need it to block the Republican agenda. Even though they just refused to use it to block a Republican agenda.

But it won’t. Hakeem Jefferies will have his members wear, “How will this lower the cost of eggs?” t-shirts as they’re obediently led in front of firing squads.

Bernie is too old and he knows it. He’s not gonna run. AOC has a pretty bad favorable to unfavorable ratio nationally. That’s not automatically disqualifying; numbers aren’t set in stone, and a lot could change between now and 2028, but she’s not starting from the same place of broad appeal that Sanders did. As much as I love both of them, we need to look beyond the same two people for progressive candidates.

As someone else already said, there is functionally no difference in terms of what he’s doing to our country. But if we elevate unverified nonsense about Trump being a secret sleeper agent, it makes credible evidence of Russian influence seem less credible.

LOL, you’re literally doing the thing I’m describing. You’re making an outlandish claim (that I am a paid Russian agent) that’s going to make a real issue (Russian online disinformation campaigns) seem less credible. If your reaction to someone saying, “Trump is clearly in Russia’s pocket, but you should be wary of outlandish claims with unverified sources,” is, “you must be a Russian propagandist,” you need to touch grass.

“I can’t believe it so it’s likely untrue,” is a fundamental misinterpretation of what I’m saying. “There is enough evidence of a Trump/Russia connection without unreliable sources,” would be more accurate.

Believing unverified claims has consequences. Remember the Steele dossier, with its wild allegations of blackmail and urinating prostitutes? It’s now pretty much entirely discredited due to unreliable sources, and the very real, very clear connection between Trump and Russia lost credibility with it.

Similarly, the Mueller investigation was also undermined by outlandish claims. Left-leaning grifters like Louise Mensch and the Krassenstein brothers made predictions of imminent arrests and treason charges. When the Mueller Report was finally released, it stated that, while there wasn’t enough evidence to say Trump definitively colluded with Russia, there was no evidence to clear him of that charge, and he committed criminal obstruction of justice during the course of the investigation. That should have been a damning conclusion, but after months of wild speculation and overhype, it was labeled a nothing-burger.

So, I’m going to remain skeptical of an old KGB agent’s Facebook post about a 38 year plot to recruit Donald Trump as a spy, and instead stick to what is known: Trump has long had business dealings with Russian oligarchs, the Russian government supported him through online propaganda, there were credible accusations of collusion between his campaign and Russia, and he is now promoting a pro-Russia foreign policy. That’s significant enough.

And that is not saying, “I can’t believe the world is round so Occam’s razor it must be flat because that I can understand.” That’s saying, “I can see the Earth is curved, and while some people claim we’re actually on the back of giant turtle, Occam’s Razor says it’s probably just round.”

I’m always skeptical of claims like this. Don’t get me wrong, Trump is actively working to advance the Russian agenda, and Russia has actively supported him financially and through propaganda. But I’m wary of tales of kompromat or clandestine, decades long KGB plots.

Occam’s razor, I think Trump is a piece of shit that would destroy his own country to make a quick buck, and Putin offered him a quick buck. Honestly, elaborate Manchurian Candidate conspiracies would probably be less scary than the idea that our entire democracy can collapse because one real-estate conman was willing to sell us all out.

I mean, yeah, if you want to have a populous movement, you can’t do it without half the country. Also, sure, hardcore MAGA voters are fragile, racist, white working class folks, but the majority of people in these districts aren’t that type of voter. Most of them are low information voters who pulled the lever for Trump because they liked one or two things he said in a speech. Even more of them are people who just didn’t like either candidate and decided their vote wasn’t important. We need to activate those people and get them to scream at their Senators and Congressmen if we want to stop Trump and Musk from gutting our democracy.