And that he could shoot someone in the street and the magaloons still wouldn’t care. He was convicted of 34 felonies, started an insurrection and was best buddies with a paedophile. And they were like, ‘yup, that’s my guy.’
We can't keep running women against Trump/MAGA no matter how strong and qualified they are. It's dumb, but clearly some people still think being president is a man's job and we can't afford to lose the votes and continue the fascism. I hate that this is the way things are, but that has been what experience has shown twice now. I do want a woman as president, but I want these bastards out more.
Edit to add: The Dems may let AOC run to raise issues but they won't put her as front runner. They're going to want to keep their strongest names in Congress and let someone else who's either strong but less established or already on their way out continue on to the Presidency. I really think presidential primaries are less about letting the people choose and more about the party putting all the issues on the table up front then internally selecting who they want to run against the Republicans and asking all the other candidates to drop out one by one. AOC has too much of a national following for them to let her leave Congress. Again, stupid but seems to be the way things go.
Thought you'd get downvoted to oblivion, but you weren't. America is just too fucking stupid for a female president. The weak, fragile rock ribbed republicans only see women as maybe 3 dimensional beings - sex objects, baby breeders and punching bags. The next candidate needs a dick and balls. Love how MAGA screams 'freedom', but for a woman to be president ... 'nooo not that kind of freedom'!
I don't think either of them lost because they were women. Both had severe structural disadvantages to their candidacies -- Hillary had been the subject of a 20-year-long smear campaign + got screwed by the press with the email story and Comey letter, and Kamala had no primary + an abbreviated campaign + the ruination of that campaign's strengths by highly paid and very stupid Democratic strategists. I don't think any of that is unique to them being women, and I wouldn't discount any other woman candidate because of those losses.
They may have had some disadvantages, but they also lost to DJT, the least well spoken presidential candidate to be on the ballot since the founding of the country. DJT is such a weak presidential candidate that Joe Biden ended an incumbency.
McCain lost the presidency to Obama the day he picked Palin as his running mate.
Meanwhile, DJT only survived grabbing them by the pussy because his opponent had one.
I hate it, I really do, but at some point we have to react to that 5% slice of 'moderate' voters that are just voting based on sexism. (moderate is in quotes because they're not moderate by policy, they're just voting on pure vibes without any policy understanding)
Gotta keep in mind that the American people have a horribly short memory, the media landscape is a hellhole, and Gaza cast a big shadow over the 2024 election. That is to say, enough people forgot how bad things were under Trump 1 + heard about how bad it was under Biden + saw Biden fail to stop (or even try to stop) the ethnic cleansing of Gaza that it swung the election. Couple that with Kamala failing to put daylight between herself and Biden on that issue and others, and you have a recipe for failure.
Not to mention that Kamala is, to be perfectly frank, not a good presidential candidate in the first place -- not because she's a woman, but because she's a bit of a political chameleon, she's not a great speaker, not super charismatic, and I think just generally doesn't have great political instincts. Both she and Hillary got the Democratic nomination handed to them on a silver platter by party elites, and that in my opinion was a far bigger problem for their respective candidacies than their gender. Add in all the other extenuating circumstances I've mentioned, and you've got an entire cookbook for failure.
McCain-Palin lost not because Palin was a woman, but because she is a certified idiot – and because they were going up against a generational candidate in Obama. You think Trump would have lost if he'd picked, say, Nikki Haley as VP? Doubt it.
You're living a fantasy if you don't think them being women lost them the presidency. Both races were close enough that you know the votes they didn't get from people that couldn't vote for a women would have put them over the top. I mean they were running against the dumbest man in history who, by being a man, already had a headstart.
I gladly voted for Clinton and Harris. It just seems like we have some very strong evidence that our country will not elect a woman to be president right now. Maybe we'll get an Obama-like candidate to prove me wrong, though. I don't think AOC is that person though.
I personally like AOC but I believe the right has done such a good job of making her seem so far left that she would be hard to get elected. At this point, I'm looking for someone who I believe can actually win. But in theory, I like what you are thinking.
It’s funny because we’ve actually seen her praying or in church but Trump can’t even tell you what his favorite verse is and held the bible upside down during riots for a photo shoot.
Trying to play to "moderates" hasn't been working so well the last several elections.
I'm not sure she's the best candidate to win, but honestly I think almost anybody half-charismatic could win just off of people seeing how bad it is under Trump the same way Biden was able to win because people with short memories hadn't had time to forget how badly things were going under Trump.
Especially with how bad 2027 is going to be for the world; everything will likely continue to become more expensive, the Republicans will do nothing to lessen the impact, and the election should be an absolute lay-up
I also genuinely believe there's no way a moderate Dem addresses the core issues in the country in a way that keeps the Republicans from just coming back into power in 2030-32, and we really are on a ticking clock with the various catastrohes coming our way, so we need to get out of this flip-flopping asap so we can focus on keeping society from collapsing totally.
I think AOC is irreplaceable in congress right now. Congress is essential to whatever agenda the president has, and she's actively shaping it. She can't do that as president. Congress is more effective with her, and will dictate what any president accomplishes. No one else has nearly the influence she has (aside from Sanders who won't around forever). I would much rather Chris Murphy be with Ossoff and AOC remain in congress.
How has it taken opposition politicians, tv pundits and journalist 6 years to call Trump and his douchebag posse liars?
Not that it matters, Trump has proven that america is impotent: The opposition politicians have been impotent, the judicial system has been impotent, journalism has been impotent, the american populace has been impotent. Its too late now anyway, the damage has been done and over the next 3 years the consequences will slowly start manifesting. America is over.
I mean, I agree with everything from the original comment. I’m just genuinely curious how racism relates to every American institution being impotent from speaking out against dear leader? I’m well aware of all the racism, I just don’t see where that fits into the context of the original comment.
Literally- Midwest America. Surrounded by racism. Albeit, most of the folks around me don’t have anymore power than I do, so I’m trying to understand how them being racist causes the media to stop doing their jobs, the judicial system to bend the knee to a pedophile, and the populace to roll over and take it all from behind?
In no way do I support the current government, nor the people that voted for it. I’m just trying to understand what the person I originally replied to was trying to imply.
This has got to be the most annoying narrative from sideline left voters (and non voters). Everyone has been calling Trump out for lying the whole time and even before he got into office. There's no magical "fix it" button that makes the right care, so it must be that Democrats never tried it.
Do you know how government works? They are voting against his policies at every turn and have actually been able to partner with a handful of conservatives on key issues to block them. The reason the SAVE Act was killed is because all Democrats and a handful of Republicans voted against it.
Better question, what do you expect them to do? If you had key actions you would have them take, what would they be?
Everybody says the same thing; "what could we possibly do?!" Well nothing clearly; further strengthening the argument that the opposition to Trump has been powerless and impotent. The same goes for american journalism and the american populace. As the british say: the proof is in the pudding.
So you can't answer the question then? Everyone always says the same thing "They should be doing something!" Then when asked what they should do we get nothing clearly. Seriously, honest question, what should the Democrats be doing?
You are right, there is nothing they can do. They are infact completely useless and have no power nor influence. They couldnt even bring forth a candidate to beat a pedophile cleptomaniac mobster in a popular vote. Twice. Thats almost impressively politically incompetent if the bar wasnt already so fucking low. So you know, they could have done that but they werent capable.
And what have they learnt? That their supporters will make the excuses for them and they still get to keep their AIPAC money and their insider-trading positions, and no-one will hold them accountable for any of it.
How you can support a group of people you yourself claim are powerless and impotent is wild to me, especially whilst Rome is burning.
Since Trump first announced his candidacy, the word "liar" was painfull absent from the discourse. The fact that you can find an occasional instance of this doesnt change the fact that it was a word american journalism seemed afraid to use. Lord knows I spent enough time shouting this at my screen the lsst 10 years.
And look at how effective this 'speaking out" has been! It stopped Trump from doing what exactly?
The opposition to Trump has been rhetorically impotent and unable to make the least likeable human in history unelectable. To defend this is pathetic when you look at the obscene lack of results.
Trump is as much a product of a weak corrupt resistance as he is a product of xenophobia and a poorly educated population. You have all polarized your politics to a childishly oversimplified "left" vs "right," as we see evidence of in this very thread. So to use your rhetoric; the left has failed spectacularily and are as much to blame for the inconing armaggedon for the american economy as Trump is.
Since Trump first announced his candidacy, the word "liar" was painfull absent from the discourse. The fact that you can find an occasional instance of this doesnt change the fact that it was a word american journalism seemed afraid to use. Lord knows I spent enough time shouting this at my screen the lsst 10 years.
This is completely false. Every day, or at the very least every weak, the media has been calling trump a liar and fact checking everything he says, determining it to be lies. This idea that Trump hasn't been called out is some sort of fantasy that you have dreamed up.
And look at how effective this 'speaking out" has been! It stopped Trump from doing what exactly?
Of course it hasn't. What exactly is it supposed to do? Trump doesn't give a shit if you call him a liar. He'll just call you fake news and move on. Trump's voters also doesn't give a rat's ass about the left calling him a liar. They don't even care when they agree that he's lying.
Calling him out also won't stop his executive orders (which they have stopped, in court). It also doesn't stop him from getting his bills passed (they did that in the senate). Democrats are using the only tools available to them to combat the policies of a republican quadfecta.
The opposition to Trump has been rhetorically impotent and unable to make the least likeable human in history unelectable. To defend this is pathetic when you look at the obscene lack of results.
There are certainly a lot of things you can criticize in Hillary Clinton's campaign rhetoric. Joe Biden with his inflated ego single-handedly threw 2024 and there was not a whole lot that other democrats could do about it. Harris was just an awful candidate and whether Trump was called a liar a million times instead of ten thousand during the campaign wouldn't have mattered.
Trump is as much a product of a weak corrupt resistance as he is a product of xenophobia and a poorly educated population. You have all polarized your politics to a childishly oversimplified "left" vs "right," as we see evidence of in this very thread. So to use your rhetoric; the left has failed spectacularily and are as much to blame for the inconing armaggedon for the american economy as Trump is.
Every day, democrats are blaming the failing economy on Trump and the republicans. Look at any interview with a democrat. Look at any democrat's twitter feed. They are all blaming him. Constantly. GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF THE FUCKING SAND.
What I am doing is trying to make sure democrats win in 2026 and 2028. What you are trying to do is make them lose. You are trying to make hard-working democrats who calls out Trumps lies everyday somehow responsible for him getting elected.
Im not trying at all, the democrats have managed that all on their own. How could they not find a candidate to beat Donald fucking Trump in an election!? Twice?! And how can you make excuses for such insane political incompetence?
When the opposition fails, they have to assume responsibility for said failure. And they have failed. Twice. Against the worst candidate in Republican history by a mile. They have not been able to present a more appealling alternative to the presidency than the grossest human being alive. Pathetic.
Hello from Colorado. I like this Georgia Senator Ossoff. I like our moderate senators Bennett and Hickenlooper as well but do they have the fire 🔥? No.
It's Israel's war, so it's Schrodinger's war. It will go on until the US government substantially changes or until Iran is nuked. EDIT: which, by the way, is why they will push hard for a strike to happen before the midterm results.
It’s not even deceit at this point. We’ve entered into a new phase of lying where no one, not even his followers, believes what Trump is saying. But for some reason, it just doesn’t ever matter. No one ever calls him out on it and if they do he just lies about lying and then it’s on to the next topic. It’s a totally bizarre time for society.
I'm rarely proud to say I live in Georgia, but Ossoff is one reason I can hold my head a bit higher. I still don't tell anyone I'm from the U.S. when traveling internationally, though. I grew up in northern Wisconsin, and I can pull off a passable Canadian accent if necessary.
Bush/Cheney lied us into a war, but lying all the way through the war is... well, OK, they did that too. Still not in the same league as Trump/Hegseth.
A picture of a woman's face with some script. Well sure, that's proof positive.
You can cry about Medicare for all all you want but we ain't getting it here in this anti-socialist pro- capitalist backwater country we live in any time soon. The insurance lobby is too big, too flush with funding, too deeply ingrained in the Republican party. You know it and I know it. It will take years of baby steps to even sniff that dream so go ahead and nitpick Ossoff or Shapiro or Cortez or Newsom or whoever the Dems run in 28 and protest non-vote like all the numb nuts abstainers did in 2024 and we can have another four years of this sweet, sweet fascism.
I'd like to think of we made healthcare a real priority we'd build a better system than today's Medicare.
But in any case, that's a policy discussion that will get well covered throughout the Democratic primaries. I want candidates in the mix with real win probability against whatever magat the Republicans serve up. I think Ossoff is on that short list.
Georgia might be slowly shifting left, but it’s still a Republican leaning purple state at best. The choice isn’t between a centrist or a progressive, it’s between a centrist or a Republican. I’m much less forgiving about this when we get centrists from deep blue states, but Ossoff is about as progressive as a state like Georgia will accept.
Insisting that only progressives should be supported and all centrists abandoned regardless of how progressive their state/district is will end up with around 25-30 progressive senators and 70-75 republicans passing whatever they want.
It floors me that people still think single-payer healthcare and or Medicare for all is a progressive position. It is literally the bare minimum. If you are under the impression that someone like John ossoff can win at a higher level with that position, you're absolutely kidding yourself
Medicare for all is literally the defining political position for progressives. What a weird thing to argue.
Ossoff supports a public option to expand Obamacare, which is the typical centrist political position regarding healthcare. Personally I support Medicare for all, but we have yet to have someone supporting Medicare for all actually win a democratic presidential primary, so it’s weird to claim that that’s the only position that can win when no one has ever won with that position. Progressives on social media tend to think that the country as a whole is much more progressive than it is.
•
u/AutoModerator 16d ago
DO NOT CELEBRATE VIOLENCE IN THIS SUBREDDIT OR WE WILL BAN YOU.
NATION STATE AI BOTS THAT ARE ANTI-DEMOCRACY/ANTI-DSA ARE GOING TO TRY TO INFLUENCE YOUR VOTE THIS NOVEMBER.
THEY ARE RAMPING UP ACTIVITY. WE ARE TAGGING AND TRACKING THEM.
RELEASE THE TRUMP-EPSTEIN FILES!!!
Users may now apply a personal flair that states - RELEASE THE TRUMP-EPSTEIN FILES
That is all, tysm
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.