Doug

joined 2 years ago
[–] Doug@midwest.social 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

What a fun loop.

This

Democrats allowed corporate money to dictate their policies, but that isn't even close to what Republicans have done.

Is in direct opposition to this

Most of the time, there actually is little difference between Democratic and Republican levels of corruption.

It is, however, in line with

The things are very different. You can acknowledge the problems in one party without dismissing the larger ones in the other.

Or a match and inferno comparison. Would you like to acknowledge your own words or do you need to scroll back up to see them?

It was apparently a surprise to you, or you wouldn't have claimed that the only reason Bernie is easier to sell to Trumpists than Biden is that I'm "doing it wrong".

I'm going to stand by that and assume you didn't read the whole comment before replying. From what I can see you didn't sell Bernie, you sold Bernie's positions which we'll go over again momentarily.

From the video "I would vote for Bernie Sanders before I would vote for a Ted Cruz or a Marko Rubio".

Which is still not the thing you or I said. "I would prefer this person over someone else who isn't a consideration" isn't the same as "I think this person is a good candidate". I'd vote for Chris Christie before I voted for Rubio or Cruz, but I wouldn't vote for any of them.

The people in the video also said he's not really a Republican since other Republicans are running against him, which is absurd for a handful of reasons.

I've seen it even more explicit many times. Unfortunately, I can't find search terms that bring those up. I did try, which is more than you have done to support your claims.

I'm not sure "I know it happens but I can't prove it" is the argument you think it is. Aside from that "I tried to look for things to show you but you haven't done that much yourself" is also an absurd claim. How do you know what I have or haven't searched for. You're falling apart at the seems here.

Thus far there has been one source in the whole conversation, which you're trying your best to say says something it does not. You're reading your own intentions in to the content and claiming it as gospel.

On the other hand I've largely refuted your claims. They've been unsourced so refutations do not need sources. As far as the sourced claim I'm happy to use the one you already provided. They didn't claim the thing you're trying to claim. It's like you read the abstract and decided what the whole paper said so you used it without really bothering to read any more of it.

Even uninformed voters know who Bernie, Biden, and Trump are.

Yes, and they know Bernie and Biden are "bad". Like they know "socialism" is "bad". They don't need to understand positions because their minds are already made up. If they were informed on positions and practices they would not exchange Bernie for Trump. Just like they'd be a bit more thoughtful about the fact that claim problems with the billionaire class while excusing the man that admit they consider a crony capitalist. But they don't.

A lot of people benefited greatly, but most workers lost money on the deal.

I've heard this before from people who listen more than they read. Like how everything got more expensive after even though the rate of price increase didn't.

Here is a casual source for that. At least as worthwhile as a badly interpreted, video where a guy setting out to prove a thing finds ways to do so.

That's how corruption makes Democratic politicians weak.

A combination of a few shitty things and a lot of misinformation taken at face value? Sounds about right.

And even then you still can show how it's remotely equivalent.

I honestly have no idea what you are trying to say here.

I wish I could say I'm shocked.

Build Back Better (which you can find with one of those little Google searches that with for you) was an infrastructure bill being pushed by Biden. It was received on the right about as well as you'd expect. It was a big part of the news while it was being discussed. In large part that was how much right wing talking heads were decrying it. As such people who follow right wing outlets were often against it without knowing what it was about.

My suspicion, and claim, is that if you took the content of that proposal and asked people if they liked it more or less than BBB you'd get much the same as you did with Obamacare/ACA. Supposing you did, you would have roughly as much room to claim those people support Biden as you do claiming that the people in your posted video support Bernie.

This is really beginning to feel like an exercise in futility and I doubt I'll be willing to keep trying to tell you the same things much longer.

[–] Doug@midwest.social 1 points 2 years ago (3 children)

I can not fathom...

You will in a moment

That's how our broken system works. I'd love to see it replaced.

Hey look, you just did it yourself. "Our guys corruption is just how the system works so it's not their fault really, but those other guys are just corrupt."

"The system is broken so everyone in it is equally corrupt"

If that's what you're saying then Bernie is obviously also just as corrupt as anyone else in federal government. If it's not clarify.

Show me a hardcore Trump supporter who has been convinced that Biden isn't Satan.

I've seen that roughly as often as I've seen the same with Bernie

Don't. https://youtu.be/zCyZHB7NdPE?si=ZRl-QYHfHxF64AYm

It's no surprise to anyone that plenty of Trump supporters support left wing positions. That's not what your statement was. You said you could get them to support Bernie. I didn't see anywhere in that video that any one of them agreed Bernie would be a good president. I saw lots of supporting the kind of thing he supports, but that's the way the propaganda machine works. You can get a lot of people to agree on policy all day long until you get to key words. We saw the same thing with Obamacare and the Affordable Care Act. I bet you could do it again with Build Back Better. Which, by the logic you used to apply with the use of this video, would be Trump supporters supporting Biden.

[–] Doug@midwest.social 10 points 2 years ago

100% There was a whole lot of it being pushed in response to the USSR's existence. IIRC that's when "under God" got added to the pledge, for example

[–] Doug@midwest.social 2 points 2 years ago

I would think it would be calling yourself a professional vampire

[–] Doug@midwest.social 1 points 2 years ago

So more Gmail than G+

[–] Doug@midwest.social 5 points 2 years ago (3 children)

Might Bluesky be doing the same?

[–] Doug@midwest.social 51 points 2 years ago (16 children)

In fairness, Gmail had a similar invite system when it launched and that's been way more successful than G+

[–] Doug@midwest.social 2 points 2 years ago

They don't like "famous person meddles in politics" unless it's their famous person.

Friendly reminder that the two times a famous outsider without a political background has been elected president it was a Republican.

[–] Doug@midwest.social 2 points 2 years ago

Even if they all wrote in the same person it's unlikely to be enough. That's always been the flaw with that kind of complaint.

Teddy fucking Roosevelt didn't win as a third party. Ross Perot was in the debates and got almost 19% of the popular vote (and none of the electoral, big shock). It's going to take something massive and a fuck ton of work for a third party to be anything but an official complaint.

[–] Doug@midwest.social 8 points 2 years ago

GOP hopefuls haven't cared what the majority wants in decades. Why should this be different?

[–] Doug@midwest.social 2 points 2 years ago

Just switch to talking Tamarian immediately.

Kiteo, his eyes closed

[–] Doug@midwest.social 9 points 2 years ago (3 children)

Better get a tie breaker from the knees

view more: ‹ prev next ›