davehunter.bsky.social
843 posts
28 followers
17 following
Discussion Master
comment in response to
post
Why would that make you so upset? If you aren't a centrist democrat then you aren't being referred to by these people.
comment in response to
post
The word still has a meaning it's just cruder.
comment in response to
post
No.
bsky.app/profile/whst...
comment in response to
post
No, "tankie" has broken containment. It can apply to any kind of exuberant socialist now.
Anyway, the bigotry obviously goes beyond that one word, and is directed at anyone who appears to be a socialist, or really even a leftist, regardless of their self-applied labels.
comment in response to
post
No. I mean the people who use that word as a slur, who may belong to whatever variety of tendencies but are not leftists.
comment in response to
post
Not really. Though the point is that there's no self-applied label that can be abandoned. The bigotry is directed at the behavior, and the label will be invented if none exist.
comment in response to
post
It has long outlived its original usage, and is now just a slur beloved and freely used by non-leftists.
comment in response to
post
This has nothing to do with any particular self-applied label. There's a socially acceptable bigotry against any person who engages in any advocacy of any socialist-resembling platform. Like "tankie" is their slur, that they made up. You don't have to identify any particular way to get called that.
comment in response to
post
You made it relevant when you disagreed with the claim that Democrats take positions in opposition to what's popular with their base. Obviously the Democrats do this, when they defend Israel and when they defend private health insurance.
comment in response to
post
Will Stancil, et al, are in this 98%. After Trump's approval on immigration dropped, they attributed it to "Democrats talking about immigration." After they seemed to go back up: "Democrats have stopped talking about immigration."
comment in response to
post
I do wonder if it's possible to change people's minds about that. It's obviously an acceptable bigotry, but what if it weren't.
comment in response to
post
Not really. Most people can't be so easily baited into bragging about how smart they are. That's pretty much just you and Fredo Corleone.
comment in response to
post
For sure; I never said I had above average intelligence. But the question remains: a lot of people are parroting the same optics advice. Are all of them above average like you? It doesn't seem to leave much room for the hordes of morons that the substance of the advice itself assumes.
comment in response to
post
Thanks for being honest that your optics advice rests on an unstated assumption that you're smarter than most people.
But how big does the gap between you and the average person need to be for this advice to make sense?
Are all the identical "optics advice guys" on the internet geniuses as well?
comment in response to
post
Proud defender of immigrants... unless it means giving up left-bashing.
comment in response to
post
I don't get it because you're just some completely average person, yet you're confident in your savvy understanding of "optics." So why wouldn't the other average people in the country be savvy enough to think past a Mexican flag?
comment in response to
post
Do you ever give any thought to the Latine voters that have recently shifted to Trump? And how being a condescending pedant might not be helpful in winning them back? Or do you just get to be however you want.
comment in response to
post
No, I think your first instinct was correct; it's just cynical engagement farming.
I do agree with your first point that this is a tactic he has repeated many times.
comment in response to
post
Yes, I agree that he is deliberately vague as a way of manipulating people into paying attention to him. I'm glad other people see it, too.
comment in response to
post
Why not clarify who you mean when you're threatening "consequences" against unnamed groups.
comment in response to
post
At some point something caused bitcoin to exist. It is possible to understand what that cause is.
comment in response to
post
"Let's never look more than five minutes back in time to understand the causes of anything."
comment in response to
post
Or, these effects all had the same cause, which was Trump overreach on immigration, and the Democrats were right that he would inevitably shoot himself in the foot and they merely had to wait him out.
comment in response to
post
Not at all! You can have that one.
comment in response to
post
This is all nonsense that you made up to please yourself. You could not possibly know if any of it is true. It might FEEL like you know it's true. But remember: it also FELT like you knew what a run-in sentence was.
comment in response to
post
I think I've been pretty generous, considering that you swooped in to lecture me about grammar, and then made the exact error you incorrectly accused me of making. That's a humiliating mistake on your part, but I let it slide.
comment in response to
post
It's funny to block someone when you're already losing 1,000,050 - 0. It's too late! You already learned about your own limitations!
comment in response to
post
You don't understand what a run-on sentence is. "And you're wrong, it's a run-on sentence" is a run-on sentence.
comment in response to
post
Obviously, the US should stop providing the arms for mass slaughter. But the more specific ask being directed at Harris, in that moment, was for a conditional embargo. She'd have had the support of the "majority online" if she'd met the ask for basic decency. She chose not to.
comment in response to
post
It's not a run-on sentence. Why did you think you understood what a run-on sentence was? What else might you incorrectly believe yourself to understand?
comment in response to
post
No, remember? Remember how there's a reality? And that we both live in the same one? And that in this reality, neither one of us voted for Trump or wished to see him win office?
Try to remember to only talk about SHARED reality. Just try.
comment in response to
post
Wrong. That's why she was asked about CONDITIONING aid. Did you see that word in there? Do you see how the words I say correspond to events that took place in reality?
comment in response to
post
"Politics" is generally considered to be the act of "trying to win elections." It's not "politics" when you say, as Harris did, that you would rather let Trump win than meet a simple ask for basic human decency.
comment in response to
post
It's spelled "aide" when used in that sense.
Are you really so disconnected from reality that you don't remember widely reported events from last year. Weird!
www.democracynow.org/2024/8/30/ha...
comment in response to
post
No one demanded the perfect candidate. The ask was for a conditional arms embargo. No one should have even HAD to ask for that. But that was the very reasonable ask. That she went on TV, and spat on. Weird choice! Don't you realize how weird that was.
comment in response to
post
Wrong. Certainly it was weird (to normal people) when Democrats refused to use the word ceasefire. But that was in 2023. In 2024, when the election took place, the ask of Harris was "conditional arms embargo." That's why she specifically rejected that ask.
www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_ent...
comment in response to
post
There were two turning points in the election. Trump stole a bunch of likely Harris voters from the center by bringing in RFK Jr. And Harris refused to expand her coalition by coming out in favor of a conditional arms embargo. Harris very explicitly said that she'd rather that Trump win.
comment in response to
post
There was no "moving goalpost." That's just more nonsense words. The ask was for a conditional arms embargo. Harris explicitly said "I will never stop selling bombs to Israel no matter what they do with them." What a strange, stupid, evil decision. It's just very weird the way you shrug that off.
comment in response to
post
What does any of that refer to. Remember, words usually refer to things. When you say some nonsense words, and an actual person asks you what you are "referring" to, that doesn't mean you should say some more nonsense words.
comment in response to
post
What action of mine do your words refer to. Do you still remember the concept of words referring to aspects of the physical world?
comment in response to
post
What are you talking about. Do you have any connection left to reality at all. Can you express a thought that anyone could understand if they don't have exactly your pattern of internet brain damage.
comment in response to
post
Explanation for what. Is there one of you that can express actual complete thoughts.
comment in response to
post
Seems like projection since you're literally just repeating a text string you literally don't understand because you can literally no longer generate your own thoughts.
comment in response to
post
I care about Gaza the normal amount that a normal person would. And I actually didn't "let Trump win." What a weird thing to say! Why would you say such a weird thing? What do you even mean by it? Do you even know? Do you ever even know why you say the things you say?
comment in response to
post
Wonder why she rejected the ask. That was weird. And you're weird not to care why she rejected the ask! Why don't you care about that?
comment in response to
post
comment in response to
post
Every single one of those emojis is just you punching your own brain to get it to shut up.
comment in response to
post
The ask was a robust conditional arms embargo. That was the ask. She emphatically rejected the ask. No one can really say why. It doesn't matter how you spin her rejection of the ask. There was an ask. It was reasonable. It was emphatically rejected. That was the turning point in the election.
comment in response to
post
In order to win elections, Democrats need to figure out how to go viral!
That's why candidates have to stop making promises of economic security that always go viral.
We know those promises will never go viral.
Candidates just cynically make these promises because they know they will go viral.
comment in response to
post
Prove it.