Exactly.
Yes, there are plenty of problems with Trump, MAGA, and the Republican party, but it's very obvious that Trump's supporters are genuine and enthusiastic with their support. The only recent thing comparable on the (D) side was with Bernie, but the DNC made sure that didn't happen. I have not met anyone with genuine enthusiasm for Clinton, Biden, or Harris (at least not without it being some form of "well, (s)he's better than Trump"). The people leading the DNC would rather keep whatever power they can in the party, even if it means losing elections, than step back and listen to what voters truly want.
Here from PA to disagree. I believe that if Bernie had won in 2016, his VP would be our president-elect right now, and Trump would've never attempted a return to politics.
Harris, Biden, and Clinton are not progressives. The DNC shut out a popular progressive in 2016 and learned nothing then. D voters as a whole are too quick to dismiss anyone that might be a threat to their main candidate. Of course, Sanders running independent in 2016 would've secured an even more humiliating loss for Clinton. But it would've steered us toward a more productive conversation by now, and Trump likely wouldn't have won a second term, or probably even another nomination. Instead, let's move to the right and try to appeal to those "moderate"/"swing" voters.
I don't think Biden would've won without Trump's (mis)handling of the pandemic. There's certainly misogynists out there that would never vote for a woman, but the pandemic was the other major differentiator. The DNC is fine with serving their donors with the most appealing not-Trump puppet, rather than getting a candidate that the citizens genuinely want to vote for.
Are you listening to yourself? Trump is crazy/senile. Many of the people that support him know this, but will continue to support him because he appoints the (R) judges they want. He could be the craziest person on the planet, but his supporters just won't care as long he can be relied upon to deliver the courts.
A month ago, I though Harris had a good chance at winning. But as we got closer to election day, ads, headlines, and commentators focused more and more on how bad Trump is, rather than what she stands for or promises. That's why she lost. No one was going to change the minds of any Trump voters. She needed to get undecided/swing/unmotivated voters to vote FOR her, rather than vote against Trump. "We're not going back"? Fine, I don't want that either, but instead of repeating that over and over, how about you remind people what it means for a Harris administration to move us forward? You can't do that because you're keeping us in bed with Israel and people are concerned about the implications from that? Yeah, she was going to lose to the "pet-eating" douche.
Say whatever you want about Trump and his supporters, and sure, there's plenty to disagree with. But, they had someone they were voting FOR, and that means more than being scared of the alternative.
Trump wasn't in the Democratic primary.
And what the fuck does the holocaust have to do with anything?
Who cares who got RFK to run? Let the candidates debate, and let the citizens vote. Why are so many people scared of that concept that no one is talking about the fact that the DNC rigged three consecutive primaries?
I do believe that just about every major issue that this country/world is facing deserves a more nuanced discussion than just the (R) and (D) party platforms. Life is rarely that simple. Wouldn't you like to have had a better idea of where Harris stands on everything and maybe have been questioned and challenged a bit before the convention? Or are you just happy to have a not-Trump candidate that isn't senile?
Then the Dems would have nothing to fear by letting him run in the primary, right? Oh wait...if he got even 1 delegate, they couldn't have just handed the nomination to Harris. There might have been a debate or a vote? The party that's "defending democracy" can't have that, I guess.
And in some instances, both sides actually do the same shit. Can you really not see that since at least Perot, if not McGovern, they've both been doing whatever possible to exclude third parties when they're a threat, or support them when it's convenient?
I bet you think professional wrestling is real too...
And the Dems dicked with RFK to get him to run independent instead of possibly getting a Democratic delegate. Both parties will do whatever necessary to make sure the two-party system is maintained and outsiders don't threaten their control. What else is new?
I think he's including primaries and VP candidates.
I was going to say the "grab them by the pussy" tape was crossing the line, but yeah, treason as well.
Which election was that?
I did not say the DNC is the state. I am suggesting that the way the two-party system has developed is an indication of a failed state.
The DNC has rigged three primaries in a row, yet has continued to struggle against the same crook that can't form a sentence. It doesn't fit the exact definition of "failed state", but do we need to split that hair?
So that everyone running for a House seat can get their position on record before the election, I suppose
If I understand the actual text of the law, it only refers to disputes that directly involve the U.S. This dispute does not. (Sure, the U.S. is indirectly involved, but we're at least indirectly involved with everything.)
Yes, it would be stupid for him to involve himself, but Trump has done enough illegal shit that we don't need to go looking for more.
The delegates/DNC are responsible here, not the media. If they're all going to support Harris without any debate, the media can't be faulted for reporting it.
I agree with the sentiment though. Harris has a lot of problems on her record and couldn't even make it to Iowa in 2020. That she has enough connections to get picked as VP anyway doesn't mean she has to be the default nominee.