Although it's something some people might like to change, illegal migrants aren't actually supposed to vote either, so it's the latinos with citizenship who can't be deported because you don't deport citizens.
But these idiots think "people who illegally cross borders" is a race, and apparently that the race is latino (Oh, sorry! Latinx).
But these idiots think "people who illegally cross borders" is a race, and apparently that the race is latino (Oh, sorry! Latinx).
Remember: to England, they have 4 years of labor government. Canada will be voting for Poilievre in a landslide by this time next year and Alex Jones said was a good guy so for lefties who want to avoid conservatives maybe head to England instead.
I think Musk is correct that there'll be some pain in the short term, but it's going to set up something great. I hope he goes full Milei. (Not that I'll be there to see it, but I want that for my country too)
Who doesn't love a story about someone getting beaten down and coming back faster? It's crazy. Lawsuits, criminal indictments, name-calling, the entire media industry, bullets, and now he's won the popular vote.
I'm not a partisan, so I'll eat my words if my predictions end up being wrong, just like I did when I thought Trudeau was going to be a good choice back in 2015.
I write long posts not because I'm an authority on anything -- I'm just a retard on the internet who lives in a backwater corner of nowhere -- I write to try to organize my thoughts and hope to understand things based on what facts I know or at least think I know.
I write long posts not because I'm an authority on anything -- I'm just a retard on the internet who lives in a backwater corner of nowhere -- I write to try to organize my thoughts and hope to understand things based on what facts I know or at least think I know.
uspol
Project 2025 is one of the many, many, many lies disseminated by the Democrats and their allies during this election, and I think it's the fact that they were so focused on the opponent they wish they were against instead of the opponent they were actually against that they seem to have lost.
Does Donald Trump strike you as a sneaky ninja who sneaks around with a secret agenda? Because in my view he's an idiot, the sort of guy who screams out his move like an anime if he's in a fight.
If that was what he planned to do, he'd be sitting there bragging about it like he brags about everything else.
I. Personally. Am not ruled by Biden, Trump, or Harris. I already have a national sales tax (exceptionally high taxes overall in fact), and universal healthcare.
Does Donald Trump strike you as a sneaky ninja who sneaks around with a secret agenda? Because in my view he's an idiot, the sort of guy who screams out his move like an anime if he's in a fight.
If that was what he planned to do, he'd be sitting there bragging about it like he brags about everything else.
I. Personally. Am not ruled by Biden, Trump, or Harris. I already have a national sales tax (exceptionally high taxes overall in fact), and universal healthcare.
uspol
The whole point of the United States was that it wasn't supposed to be a country with this massive federal government looming over everyone. That's something that changed a bit during the civil war but really changed in the past century.
It was supposed to be that your local state was where all the action was, and the federal government was just common defense and regulating interstate trade. Unfortunately, the one ring is too attractive for most to leave alone, and so the powers of the government grew and now it matters a whole lot who the president is because they regulate so much of your life.
It was supposed to be that your local state was where all the action was, and the federal government was just common defense and regulating interstate trade. Unfortunately, the one ring is too attractive for most to leave alone, and so the powers of the government grew and now it matters a whole lot who the president is because they regulate so much of your life.
Ok, end thread. Sorry for folks who had their timeline flooded, but this was my longest post ever I think, and I know it wasn't going to federate in one piece.
So, this was totally predictable. Here's why.
17 of 17. Coda
So where do we go from here?
Well, first, since I'm writing this before the election let's cover what it means if Kamala won: It means democracy is over. Now don't you worry your pretty little retarded head, they'll still pretend to have elections, but the powers that be have proven that they can take a complete idiot whose entire political career was fabricated, fabricate them into an executive position, and despite nobody liking that politician somehow giving them the keys to the most powerful nation on Earth. It means Americans are so stupid they'll just do whatever they're told and it doesn't matter who runs or what they campaign on. Someone who failed catastrophically at every turn but was carried to the presidency on pure media bravado is not good for anyone. It will mean the machine has won. Mandatory celebrations shall soon commence. There will be adequate levels of glee.
Ok, now let's talk about a Trump win. I have faith in the American people. They can be unrefined at times, but Americans aren't actually stupid. The country became a superpower on many people's great decisions. I'm hoping it's even a popular vote win, because the Democrats need their 2008 moment. They've grown complacent with a strategy that worked in 2008, but it's not 2008 anymore. It's time for them to stop doubling down on something only a tiny but vocal minority of people agree with and work to find a new platform that actually works for people. Also, they need to stop relying on a friendly media that will lie for them. They need a message that actually resonates with people besides "Vote for me, I'll let you kill your babies!"
Really, I hoped they'd get that lesson in 2020 but obviously it didn't happen, but the sooner they learn that they're on the wrong track, the sooner they might be able to get on the right track. The world isn't the same as 2008. Trump isn't George W. Bush, or even George H. W. Bush.
At the moment, it looks like the Optimates vs. the Populares from ancient Rome, but under a democracy you can't have elitism like that. Everyone ought to be trying to do what's best for the people because very few people are interested in voting for elites. Hopefully that's the next step we see, the Democrats remember they work for the people and not for a small number of elites or elite adjacents and we can have two parties with real visions that people can get behind. It's what I want to see. I'm not a partisan, I don't want to see a Republican monoparty forever. I know the dangers of too much Republican power. They'll have to take the correct lessons from this cycle, and with a strong Trump win, I think they will at least have to admit it's not just that Russia cheated.
So where do we go from here?
Well, first, since I'm writing this before the election let's cover what it means if Kamala won: It means democracy is over. Now don't you worry your pretty little retarded head, they'll still pretend to have elections, but the powers that be have proven that they can take a complete idiot whose entire political career was fabricated, fabricate them into an executive position, and despite nobody liking that politician somehow giving them the keys to the most powerful nation on Earth. It means Americans are so stupid they'll just do whatever they're told and it doesn't matter who runs or what they campaign on. Someone who failed catastrophically at every turn but was carried to the presidency on pure media bravado is not good for anyone. It will mean the machine has won. Mandatory celebrations shall soon commence. There will be adequate levels of glee.
Ok, now let's talk about a Trump win. I have faith in the American people. They can be unrefined at times, but Americans aren't actually stupid. The country became a superpower on many people's great decisions. I'm hoping it's even a popular vote win, because the Democrats need their 2008 moment. They've grown complacent with a strategy that worked in 2008, but it's not 2008 anymore. It's time for them to stop doubling down on something only a tiny but vocal minority of people agree with and work to find a new platform that actually works for people. Also, they need to stop relying on a friendly media that will lie for them. They need a message that actually resonates with people besides "Vote for me, I'll let you kill your babies!"
Really, I hoped they'd get that lesson in 2020 but obviously it didn't happen, but the sooner they learn that they're on the wrong track, the sooner they might be able to get on the right track. The world isn't the same as 2008. Trump isn't George W. Bush, or even George H. W. Bush.
At the moment, it looks like the Optimates vs. the Populares from ancient Rome, but under a democracy you can't have elitism like that. Everyone ought to be trying to do what's best for the people because very few people are interested in voting for elites. Hopefully that's the next step we see, the Democrats remember they work for the people and not for a small number of elites or elite adjacents and we can have two parties with real visions that people can get behind. It's what I want to see. I'm not a partisan, I don't want to see a Republican monoparty forever. I know the dangers of too much Republican power. They'll have to take the correct lessons from this cycle, and with a strong Trump win, I think they will at least have to admit it's not just that Russia cheated.
So, this was totally predictable. Here's why.
16 of 17. Hypocrisy and lies
Streamer Vaush has a line about being unethical to promote socialism that goes something like "of course I'll do it because I want to win as a socialist and not lose as a socialist". It's a Machiavellian way of looking at the world, and frankly politically it's a bad way of looking at the world. Even tyrants generally try to create some sort of pretext for arbitrary decisions. Eventually people notice you're just a hypocrite who will pick whatever is best for yourself in that nanosecond.
The Democrats sued to keep RFK off the ballot before they sued to keep him on the ballot.
The Trump campaign offered Harris 3 debates, she only accepted 1 until after that 1 was over, then suddenly the Harris campaign wanted more.
Joe Biden was sharp as a tack, sharp as a tack, sharp as a tack and not going anywhere nevermind he's been forced to step down because he's not fit to be president.
The Harris campaign took every opportunity to attack young men until it was clear they needed those young men to win (followed by the lamest most cringe attempt to appeal to young men I've ever seen...)
The Democrats claimed that Trump would use the legal system against his political opponents while they used the legal system against him, their legal opponent. They claimed he was inciting violence against Democrats while bullets whizzed by his head. They attacked him for childish namecalling in the same sentence they call him childish names.
Independents can see what's happening, and the self-serving lack of principles might be tactically advantageous, but it's strategically weak.
What's one word you associate with Trump? I'll tell you one thing I don't associate with Trump, and that's the word "Stealth". He's not the sort of guy who will quietly stealth into a position without being noticed. You know exactly what his positions are because he won't shut up about them.
So the idea that Project 2025, a book created by some thinktank somewhere, is actually Trumps secret publicly published and available for purchase at a reasonable price evil plan is really stupid. He said it isn't his plan, he didn't fund the plan, stop it. Lying about this thing makes you look bad.
Project 2025 also isn't the Democrat messiah that contains every message the Democrats really wish Trump was running on but isn't. It doesn't say anything about ending social security or banning abortion. The Democrats would know that, but they don't care to read it, they just need a boogeyman. Lying about this thing makes you look bad.
Trump is running on not signing a federal abortion ban. Maybe he's lying, but without any evidence that he's lying, why do the Democrats keep saying he's going to sign a federal abortion ban? Lying about this thing makes you look bad.
The fact that the Democrats have so fully infiltrated media has made them arrogant and stupid in this regard. And they're loudly complaining about the parts of communication they don't directly control. It's a bad look for "liberals".
I know every politican lies. Trump says things that are arguably false all the time. The thing is, the level of bad faith lying here is not going to win any friends. It's important to at least try to appear principled in some way, and hypocrisy and lies will lose the election -- at least try to look like you intended to keep your promise until after the votes are counted and you've won!
Streamer Vaush has a line about being unethical to promote socialism that goes something like "of course I'll do it because I want to win as a socialist and not lose as a socialist". It's a Machiavellian way of looking at the world, and frankly politically it's a bad way of looking at the world. Even tyrants generally try to create some sort of pretext for arbitrary decisions. Eventually people notice you're just a hypocrite who will pick whatever is best for yourself in that nanosecond.
The Democrats sued to keep RFK off the ballot before they sued to keep him on the ballot.
The Trump campaign offered Harris 3 debates, she only accepted 1 until after that 1 was over, then suddenly the Harris campaign wanted more.
Joe Biden was sharp as a tack, sharp as a tack, sharp as a tack and not going anywhere nevermind he's been forced to step down because he's not fit to be president.
The Harris campaign took every opportunity to attack young men until it was clear they needed those young men to win (followed by the lamest most cringe attempt to appeal to young men I've ever seen...)
The Democrats claimed that Trump would use the legal system against his political opponents while they used the legal system against him, their legal opponent. They claimed he was inciting violence against Democrats while bullets whizzed by his head. They attacked him for childish namecalling in the same sentence they call him childish names.
Independents can see what's happening, and the self-serving lack of principles might be tactically advantageous, but it's strategically weak.
What's one word you associate with Trump? I'll tell you one thing I don't associate with Trump, and that's the word "Stealth". He's not the sort of guy who will quietly stealth into a position without being noticed. You know exactly what his positions are because he won't shut up about them.
So the idea that Project 2025, a book created by some thinktank somewhere, is actually Trumps secret publicly published and available for purchase at a reasonable price evil plan is really stupid. He said it isn't his plan, he didn't fund the plan, stop it. Lying about this thing makes you look bad.
Project 2025 also isn't the Democrat messiah that contains every message the Democrats really wish Trump was running on but isn't. It doesn't say anything about ending social security or banning abortion. The Democrats would know that, but they don't care to read it, they just need a boogeyman. Lying about this thing makes you look bad.
Trump is running on not signing a federal abortion ban. Maybe he's lying, but without any evidence that he's lying, why do the Democrats keep saying he's going to sign a federal abortion ban? Lying about this thing makes you look bad.
The fact that the Democrats have so fully infiltrated media has made them arrogant and stupid in this regard. And they're loudly complaining about the parts of communication they don't directly control. It's a bad look for "liberals".
I know every politican lies. Trump says things that are arguably false all the time. The thing is, the level of bad faith lying here is not going to win any friends. It's important to at least try to appear principled in some way, and hypocrisy and lies will lose the election -- at least try to look like you intended to keep your promise until after the votes are counted and you've won!
So, this was totally predictable. Here's why.
15 of 17. Nazis! Fascists! Everywhere!
World War II was effectively a clash between four different ideologies: liberalism, class socialism, State socialism, and racial socialism.
One of the major powers didn't really have any of these ideologies. Although imperial Japan aligned with the axis, their story was much different. After the sengoku period in the 1600s, the newly established tokogawa shogunate shut the borders of Japan for 200 years, only engaging in a small amount of trade using some small outposts. Effectively, Japan became an insular feudalist regime headed by a military dictator. This was the status quo until America send a fleet of ships commanded by Commodore Perry who forced Japan's borders open with the threat of at the time highly advanced ironclad battleships centuries more advanced than anything Japan had. This, combined with the reality of China's century of humiliation resulted in the Meiji restoration of the emperor as the head of government, and the adoption of imperial policies intended to protect the islands of Japan from the same sort of disgrace that China had faced. Japan adopted the "Line of Advantage" strategy which sought to protect itself against the imperialism of the west by capturing an entire empire, and so if they were attacked by imperialist powers then it would be their holdings in oceana and mainland asia that would be affected rather than the actual islands of Japan. In World War 1, Japan sided with the allies, and had done quite well building their empire, but in world war 2 they chose to ally with the axis powers, sensing the chance to further increase the power of their empire.
There were elements of fascism and racial socialism in japan, but it was not either. Instead, it was a truly conservative state trying to maintain the power structures that had existed for millennia to whatever extent they could while they modernized to deal with a world filled with powers such as the Europeans who had effectively taken over the entire world through colonialism. The Meiji restoration restored the power of the emperor, but the emperor had long been a position in Japan, and despite the shogunate being the central power after sengoku, continued to exist since the 1600s. The Japanese were racist in the same as racial socialists, but this did not make them racial socialists per se. They were an imperial state with an emperor at the head. The Japanese had a somewhat totalitarian regime similar to the state socialists, but they were not State socialists because they were instead a mostly feudal state made up of an earlier organization of power. They were most certainly not class socialists in any way because Japan was still a highly hierarchical society, with the emperor on top and certainly poor and powerless people on the bottom. And while there were bits and pieces of liberal society from the reforms after the Meiji restoration, Japanese society was in no way a liberal society. It was its own thing separate from the ideological trappings of the early 20th century west.
The reason that I focus on the Japanese is to show that in spite of a civilization sharing aspects of various forms of socialism and even liberalism, they did not actually practice socialism or liberalism. Logically, all cars have wheels, but not all things with wheels are cars. In the same way, accusations of being a Nazi or a fascist have flown around for the last 80 years, most of the time using the same logic as cars have wheels, therefore everything with wheels is a car.
Different societies shared attributes of one another. Racial socialism is racist, but liberal societies were racist for most of their existence too. Class socialism was invented by a surprisingly racist man, with Karl Marx being shockingly racist even for his day. State socialism shared the totalitarian attributes of racial socialism and class socialism, but anyone who was one of the three would strongly disagree that they were the other things.
The end of the war was largely a victory for liberalism and class socialism (the west and the soviet union), but not completely. In many ways the war destroyed liberalism, because every state that once practiced it ended up taking on many of the aspects of a total war state. The high levels of bureaucracy, high levels of control of the populace, in the United States even the food supply was changed forever because advances in the production and storage of rations led to advances that were implemented by food companies, so today you can't even eat a piece of bread without eating a piece of military technology lying in wait for the next Total War. The same ended up being true of class socialism, which also took on any of the aspects of their Total War society, which is one of the reasons why the Soviet Union ultimately fell, and today even communist China isn't really class socialist in the sense that it would have been under Mao.
The thing is, the total war affected version of liberalism isn't state socialism, and it isn't racial socialism. It's a different thing. All cars have wheels, but not everything with wheels is a car.
In the same way, Democrats love accusing Republicans of being racial socialists or state socialists (Nazis and Fascists). Even by the most generous interpretation of facts, it may be that the Republicans share aspects of their platform with those ideologies, but not everything with wheels is a car. If we were to use the same standards, the Democrats share policies with racial socialists and state socialists as well, and certainly with class socialists, but not everything with wheels is a car.
The other problem is that even a stopped clock is right twice a day, and the racial socialists or state socialists may have ideas that once separated from the bad ideas of the ideology. As an example, most people love the volkswagen beetle despite the fact that Adolf Hitler was directly involved with the creation of both Volkswagen and the Beetle. As another example, the Autobahn was a Nazi project which Adolf Hitler was directly involved with the creation of, but nobody is proposing we tear up the Autobahn.
The constant accusations of being the bad guys from World War 2 is actually dangerous for several reasons. First, it's "the boy who cried wolf" -- If every time you see someone you don't like they're a nazi or a fascist, then eventually nobody thinks there's any actual nazis or fascists out there anymore. Second, it's not productive making accusations like this, it's the same as calling the other side "Satan" -- it might feel good, but it just says you think the other side is bad which isn't persuasive to anyone who doesn't already fully agree with you. Thirdly, it is anti-persuasive -- if you claim someone is a Nazi or a Fascist and they obviously aren't, then it discredits you so if you have real arguments they become less persuasive.
The increasing use of these attacks against Trump actually served to help his campaign, because it's so petty and so obviously incorrect. It ends up being the only attack that the Democrats can run against the guy, and it's pathetic. Everyone who is called Donald Trump a Nazi or a fascist should be ashamed of themselves, because they only showed how juvenile they are. None of the people calling Trump a Nazi or a fascist ever did an analysis like I have here, they're just reaching for the worst insult they can.
World War II was effectively a clash between four different ideologies: liberalism, class socialism, State socialism, and racial socialism.
One of the major powers didn't really have any of these ideologies. Although imperial Japan aligned with the axis, their story was much different. After the sengoku period in the 1600s, the newly established tokogawa shogunate shut the borders of Japan for 200 years, only engaging in a small amount of trade using some small outposts. Effectively, Japan became an insular feudalist regime headed by a military dictator. This was the status quo until America send a fleet of ships commanded by Commodore Perry who forced Japan's borders open with the threat of at the time highly advanced ironclad battleships centuries more advanced than anything Japan had. This, combined with the reality of China's century of humiliation resulted in the Meiji restoration of the emperor as the head of government, and the adoption of imperial policies intended to protect the islands of Japan from the same sort of disgrace that China had faced. Japan adopted the "Line of Advantage" strategy which sought to protect itself against the imperialism of the west by capturing an entire empire, and so if they were attacked by imperialist powers then it would be their holdings in oceana and mainland asia that would be affected rather than the actual islands of Japan. In World War 1, Japan sided with the allies, and had done quite well building their empire, but in world war 2 they chose to ally with the axis powers, sensing the chance to further increase the power of their empire.
There were elements of fascism and racial socialism in japan, but it was not either. Instead, it was a truly conservative state trying to maintain the power structures that had existed for millennia to whatever extent they could while they modernized to deal with a world filled with powers such as the Europeans who had effectively taken over the entire world through colonialism. The Meiji restoration restored the power of the emperor, but the emperor had long been a position in Japan, and despite the shogunate being the central power after sengoku, continued to exist since the 1600s. The Japanese were racist in the same as racial socialists, but this did not make them racial socialists per se. They were an imperial state with an emperor at the head. The Japanese had a somewhat totalitarian regime similar to the state socialists, but they were not State socialists because they were instead a mostly feudal state made up of an earlier organization of power. They were most certainly not class socialists in any way because Japan was still a highly hierarchical society, with the emperor on top and certainly poor and powerless people on the bottom. And while there were bits and pieces of liberal society from the reforms after the Meiji restoration, Japanese society was in no way a liberal society. It was its own thing separate from the ideological trappings of the early 20th century west.
The reason that I focus on the Japanese is to show that in spite of a civilization sharing aspects of various forms of socialism and even liberalism, they did not actually practice socialism or liberalism. Logically, all cars have wheels, but not all things with wheels are cars. In the same way, accusations of being a Nazi or a fascist have flown around for the last 80 years, most of the time using the same logic as cars have wheels, therefore everything with wheels is a car.
Different societies shared attributes of one another. Racial socialism is racist, but liberal societies were racist for most of their existence too. Class socialism was invented by a surprisingly racist man, with Karl Marx being shockingly racist even for his day. State socialism shared the totalitarian attributes of racial socialism and class socialism, but anyone who was one of the three would strongly disagree that they were the other things.
The end of the war was largely a victory for liberalism and class socialism (the west and the soviet union), but not completely. In many ways the war destroyed liberalism, because every state that once practiced it ended up taking on many of the aspects of a total war state. The high levels of bureaucracy, high levels of control of the populace, in the United States even the food supply was changed forever because advances in the production and storage of rations led to advances that were implemented by food companies, so today you can't even eat a piece of bread without eating a piece of military technology lying in wait for the next Total War. The same ended up being true of class socialism, which also took on any of the aspects of their Total War society, which is one of the reasons why the Soviet Union ultimately fell, and today even communist China isn't really class socialist in the sense that it would have been under Mao.
The thing is, the total war affected version of liberalism isn't state socialism, and it isn't racial socialism. It's a different thing. All cars have wheels, but not everything with wheels is a car.
In the same way, Democrats love accusing Republicans of being racial socialists or state socialists (Nazis and Fascists). Even by the most generous interpretation of facts, it may be that the Republicans share aspects of their platform with those ideologies, but not everything with wheels is a car. If we were to use the same standards, the Democrats share policies with racial socialists and state socialists as well, and certainly with class socialists, but not everything with wheels is a car.
The other problem is that even a stopped clock is right twice a day, and the racial socialists or state socialists may have ideas that once separated from the bad ideas of the ideology. As an example, most people love the volkswagen beetle despite the fact that Adolf Hitler was directly involved with the creation of both Volkswagen and the Beetle. As another example, the Autobahn was a Nazi project which Adolf Hitler was directly involved with the creation of, but nobody is proposing we tear up the Autobahn.
The constant accusations of being the bad guys from World War 2 is actually dangerous for several reasons. First, it's "the boy who cried wolf" -- If every time you see someone you don't like they're a nazi or a fascist, then eventually nobody thinks there's any actual nazis or fascists out there anymore. Second, it's not productive making accusations like this, it's the same as calling the other side "Satan" -- it might feel good, but it just says you think the other side is bad which isn't persuasive to anyone who doesn't already fully agree with you. Thirdly, it is anti-persuasive -- if you claim someone is a Nazi or a Fascist and they obviously aren't, then it discredits you so if you have real arguments they become less persuasive.
The increasing use of these attacks against Trump actually served to help his campaign, because it's so petty and so obviously incorrect. It ends up being the only attack that the Democrats can run against the guy, and it's pathetic. Everyone who is called Donald Trump a Nazi or a fascist should be ashamed of themselves, because they only showed how juvenile they are. None of the people calling Trump a Nazi or a fascist ever did an analysis like I have here, they're just reaching for the worst insult they can.
So, this was totally predictable. Here's why.
14 of 17. We're proud to announce the endorsement by Dick Cheney
Sometimes I wonder if the Democratic party is just stupid. 2008 showed that the American people didn't care for neoconservative war hawks, definitively, case closed. So of course they spent an entire news cycle bragging about it, because apparently they're allergic to winning?
I haven't seen an endorsement so radioactive since Osama bin Laden endorsed John Kerry in 2004 -- and Kerry didn't make that the centerpiece of the news cycle when he got that endorsement!
Perhaps it was meant to show that the current Democrats have bipartisan support on their ticket, but I think that's a really bad kind of bipartisanship to be focusing on. Trump's campaign this year has support of many people who were Democrat darlings. Elon Musk was once the darling of the left until he started speaking out against policies he strongly disagreed with (many people on the left call him a nazi for (checks paper) working to stop government censorship, but that's because they're literally stupid). Tulsi Gabbard was Vice-chair of the DNC and a rising star in the party. Robert F. Kennedy is part of the revered Kennedy Family with deep roots in the Democratic party. Of course these people all became "nazis" the moment they crossed the aisle, but that's because the people lobbing those insults are literally stupid. Cheney didn't stop being Cheney and magically become respected just because he crossed the aisle, and neither did Gabbard or Kennedy stop being the people who were respected when they were democrats. Note that progressives didn't have a bad word to say about Musk when he was single-handedly creating the electric vehicle market.
Sometimes I wonder if the Democratic party is just stupid. 2008 showed that the American people didn't care for neoconservative war hawks, definitively, case closed. So of course they spent an entire news cycle bragging about it, because apparently they're allergic to winning?
I haven't seen an endorsement so radioactive since Osama bin Laden endorsed John Kerry in 2004 -- and Kerry didn't make that the centerpiece of the news cycle when he got that endorsement!
Perhaps it was meant to show that the current Democrats have bipartisan support on their ticket, but I think that's a really bad kind of bipartisanship to be focusing on. Trump's campaign this year has support of many people who were Democrat darlings. Elon Musk was once the darling of the left until he started speaking out against policies he strongly disagreed with (many people on the left call him a nazi for (checks paper) working to stop government censorship, but that's because they're literally stupid). Tulsi Gabbard was Vice-chair of the DNC and a rising star in the party. Robert F. Kennedy is part of the revered Kennedy Family with deep roots in the Democratic party. Of course these people all became "nazis" the moment they crossed the aisle, but that's because the people lobbing those insults are literally stupid. Cheney didn't stop being Cheney and magically become respected just because he crossed the aisle, and neither did Gabbard or Kennedy stop being the people who were respected when they were democrats. Note that progressives didn't have a bad word to say about Musk when he was single-handedly creating the electric vehicle market.
So, this was totally predictable. Here's why.
13 of 17. The other worst election strategy I've ever seen -- "I'm a man"
It isn't a secret that the Democrats demonize men, particularly "straight white men" as they love to hatefully proclaim as if the phrase is a slur.
So it's little surprise that the Harris campaign had huge problems with attracting men. "Vote for me, you demon rapist" isn't really a winning message. Most of the way into the election, some allies of Harris released an advertising with 4 "men". There were many problems with the ad.
Just on the face of it, it looked like a satirical ad. The producer was one of the producers for Jimmy Kimmel's show, and it shows. The ad oozes non-seriousness.
Next, ad just comes off as more patronizing hate from a party everyone has become used to patronizing hate from.
Overall, the strategy of trying to waggle your finger at men who are choosing who to vote for after most men are sick and tired of being preached at is just a terrible election strategy. Trump can't win without winning some women, but Kamala can't win without winning at least some men.
It isn't a secret that the Democrats demonize men, particularly "straight white men" as they love to hatefully proclaim as if the phrase is a slur.
So it's little surprise that the Harris campaign had huge problems with attracting men. "Vote for me, you demon rapist" isn't really a winning message. Most of the way into the election, some allies of Harris released an advertising with 4 "men". There were many problems with the ad.
Just on the face of it, it looked like a satirical ad. The producer was one of the producers for Jimmy Kimmel's show, and it shows. The ad oozes non-seriousness.
Next, ad just comes off as more patronizing hate from a party everyone has become used to patronizing hate from.
Overall, the strategy of trying to waggle your finger at men who are choosing who to vote for after most men are sick and tired of being preached at is just a terrible election strategy. Trump can't win without winning some women, but Kamala can't win without winning at least some men.
So, this was totally predictable. Here's why.
12 of 17. The worst election strategy I've ever seen -- "Vibes election"
People are feeling stressed. Single people are feeling stressed not knowing how they can advance to the next phase of life. Middle-aged people are feeling stressed being uncertain about how they'll support their families at the rate things are going. Old people are deferring retirement because their retirement plans assumed prices 20% lower than they are right now. If we do a vibe check, the vibe isn't good.
So of course, the Democrats decided to try to call it a "vibes election". I thought women were supposed to be emotionally intelligent and empathetic, but the party led by a woman has rolled a 1 on the vibe check.
The other thing we saw at the DNC was trying to associate Kamala Harris as the personification of "joy". It isn't 2001, things aren't going good for a lot of people. Thinking that you can get away with branding like that is nutty, but even if you could, it's hypocritical to claim Trump supporters are in a cult while trying to make your political candidate the personification of Joy. You don't get much cultier than "I am joy!"
People need real policies right now, and the Democrat strategy seemed to presume it was 2000 and everyone had a great job and a house and a growing 401(k) so they could just ride the wave of how great things were, which was totally tone deaf.
People are feeling stressed. Single people are feeling stressed not knowing how they can advance to the next phase of life. Middle-aged people are feeling stressed being uncertain about how they'll support their families at the rate things are going. Old people are deferring retirement because their retirement plans assumed prices 20% lower than they are right now. If we do a vibe check, the vibe isn't good.
So of course, the Democrats decided to try to call it a "vibes election". I thought women were supposed to be emotionally intelligent and empathetic, but the party led by a woman has rolled a 1 on the vibe check.
The other thing we saw at the DNC was trying to associate Kamala Harris as the personification of "joy". It isn't 2001, things aren't going good for a lot of people. Thinking that you can get away with branding like that is nutty, but even if you could, it's hypocritical to claim Trump supporters are in a cult while trying to make your political candidate the personification of Joy. You don't get much cultier than "I am joy!"
People need real policies right now, and the Democrat strategy seemed to presume it was 2000 and everyone had a great job and a house and a growing 401(k) so they could just ride the wave of how great things were, which was totally tone deaf.
So, this was totally predictable. Here's why.
11 of 17. People are sick of the hatred
You can't just call yourself "anti-hate" and be so. If you're a progressive, who are you supposed to hate? We all know the answer, it's open, it's honest, it's clear as day. I've never seen more open hatred of my life. Hatred of political opponents, hatred of acceptable targets of hate with respect to race, with respect to sex, with respect to sexuality, with respect to many things. You might be able to bully people into pretending it isn't happening in public, but in a voting booth where there's nobody but yourself and God to judge, people are choosing to vote against hate.
The media claims the Trump campaign is racist, but it's making more headway with blacks than any president in recent history. It's already made huge progress with latinos. There's a reason: The media is lying.
The media claims the Trump campaign hates workers, but it's made huge headway among union workers, typically a democrat stronghold. There's a reason: The media is lying.
They put their names on the line to attack this candidate, and unlike previous years, not only is it not helping the Democrats, it's also damaging the media establishment who have lost massive amounts of credibility.
It's funny, people don't care anymore. Most people aren't in favor of open bigotry, but how long did anyone think you can scream the same 7 words at everyone you disagree with and for people to keep believing you? Most people aren't in favor of open bigotry and eventually it comes back to bite you in the ass.
You can't just call yourself "anti-hate" and be so. If you're a progressive, who are you supposed to hate? We all know the answer, it's open, it's honest, it's clear as day. I've never seen more open hatred of my life. Hatred of political opponents, hatred of acceptable targets of hate with respect to race, with respect to sex, with respect to sexuality, with respect to many things. You might be able to bully people into pretending it isn't happening in public, but in a voting booth where there's nobody but yourself and God to judge, people are choosing to vote against hate.
The media claims the Trump campaign is racist, but it's making more headway with blacks than any president in recent history. It's already made huge progress with latinos. There's a reason: The media is lying.
The media claims the Trump campaign hates workers, but it's made huge headway among union workers, typically a democrat stronghold. There's a reason: The media is lying.
They put their names on the line to attack this candidate, and unlike previous years, not only is it not helping the Democrats, it's also damaging the media establishment who have lost massive amounts of credibility.
It's funny, people don't care anymore. Most people aren't in favor of open bigotry, but how long did anyone think you can scream the same 7 words at everyone you disagree with and for people to keep believing you? Most people aren't in favor of open bigotry and eventually it comes back to bite you in the ass.