…no, dude, we’re not saying the same thing. You really need this explained? You’re saying, “pRoGrEsSiVeS DiDn’T sToP fAsCiSm BeCaUsE tHeY’Re eNtiTlEd,” and I’m saying no one, in the history of elections, turned out groups they didn’t campaign for or motivate.
Yes, you’re saying that, according to you, the loss was caused by progressives not being enthused enough because they weren’t pandered to. Exactly what I said you were saying. You continually reaffirm this and then act like you’re contradicting me, and I can’t tell if you genuinely don’t understand, or if you’re just afraid to confront the fact that your own argument places the blame for fascism on the people you were just trying to defend.
By YOUR argument, not mine, progressives refused to turn out because they weren’t motivated enough by the Dem candidate to oppose literal fucking fascism. Not sure why you’re bending over backwards not only to keep this argument, but absolve the people you claim to be responsible for ushering in fascism, but I’ve never claimed to have exceptional insight into fascist apologists.
Your only response is to repeatedly claim that it’s a fact of life that not pandering to people means you don’t get their votes, which, regardless of whether that’s true or not, does not in the least contradict the interpretation of your argument I’ve repeatedly highlighted.
No, it’s supposed to point out that it’s fucking stupid it is to call someone a Nazi because they didn’t vote for your candidate, especially when they voted for your terrible fucking candidate.
It’s absurd to call someone a Nazi for deliberately choosing to let Nazis take over the country.
Buddy, you can keep bitching and moaning all you want, but it’s just how fucking elections work. You want high turnout from gun control advocates? You can’t campaign on a Second Amendment message. You want high progressive turnout? You can’t campaign with Liz Cheney. If calling it, “pandering,” makes you feel better about it, you do you, but to people who aren’t entitled to other people’s votes, it’s called, “campaigning.”
And by the way, if stopping, “literal fucking fascism” was so important to the Harris campaign, maybe Harris shouldn’t have waited until two weeks before election day to actually use the word, “fascism.” Seems like, if the entire pitch to progressive groups was going to be, “my policy’s don’t matter, you have to vote for me to stop fascism,” they probably should have spent some time talking about fascism!
So yes, then I was correct, you are saying that progressives didn’t turn out because they didn’t find a moderate Dem exciting enough to oppose literal fucking fascism with. Like, not even any ambiguity in your claim, that’s literally and exactly what you’re saying, and what I’ve been accusing you of since the start and you’ve been denying in the weirdest fucking way.
Your only point of how my explanation and your’s is different is that you preface it with “This is how the world WORKS, you have to DEAL WITH IT”, which has no relevance to what’s being argued here.
Your entire point has been, “Progressives let fascism win because they didn’t like Harris.” Mine is, “You can’t expect demographic groups to show up for you at the ballot box when you don’t campaign for them.” We’re not saying the same thing, but if you can convince yourself that we are, then you’ll feel justified in blaming leftists instead of Democrats. Now, please, stop wasting my time.
By YOUR argument, not mine, progressives refused to turn out because they weren’t motivated enough by the Dem candidate to oppose literal fucking fascism. Not sure why you’re bending over backwards not only to keep this argument, but absolve the people you claim to be responsible for ushering in fascism, but I’ve never claimed to have exceptional insight into fascist apologists.
Your only response is to repeatedly claim that it’s a fact of life that not pandering to people means you don’t get their votes, which, regardless of whether that’s true or not, does not in the least contradict the interpretation of your argument I’ve repeatedly highlighted.
It’s absurd to call someone a Nazi for deliberately choosing to let Nazis take over the country.
Okay. You have fun with that.
Buddy, you can keep bitching and moaning all you want, but it’s just how fucking elections work. You want high turnout from gun control advocates? You can’t campaign on a Second Amendment message. You want high progressive turnout? You can’t campaign with Liz Cheney. If calling it, “pandering,” makes you feel better about it, you do you, but to people who aren’t entitled to other people’s votes, it’s called, “campaigning.”
And by the way, if stopping, “literal fucking fascism” was so important to the Harris campaign, maybe Harris shouldn’t have waited until two weeks before election day to actually use the word, “fascism.” Seems like, if the entire pitch to progressive groups was going to be, “my policy’s don’t matter, you have to vote for me to stop fascism,” they probably should have spent some time talking about fascism!
So yes, then I was correct, you are saying that progressives didn’t turn out because they didn’t find a moderate Dem exciting enough to oppose literal fucking fascism with. Like, not even any ambiguity in your claim, that’s literally and exactly what you’re saying, and what I’ve been accusing you of since the start and you’ve been denying in the weirdest fucking way.
That’s an awfully low opinion of progressives.
I don’t know what to tell you, man. Maybe if you keep saying it enough times, it’ll come true, but it doesn’t seem to be working so far.
You: “Leftists didn’t turn out because they didn’t like Harris, even though the opposition was literal fascism.”
Me: “You’re saying leftists didn’t turn out because they didn’t like Harris, even though the opposition was literal fascism.”
You: “WOAH, WHY ARE YOU TWISTING MY WORDS!?”
🤷♂️
You: “How are these two things different?”
Me: “This is exactly how they are different!”
You: “What if I conflate what your saying so it sounds like you’re agreeing with me?”
Me: “That’s not what I’m saying. That is clearly oversimplification that misrepresents my point in order to validate your own worldview.”
You: “So you agree with me?”
Me: “No.”
You: “Then I was correct.”
Anyway, with an attitude like this, you’ve got a future as a Democratic strategist!
Your only point of how my explanation and your’s is different is that you preface it with “This is how the world WORKS, you have to DEAL WITH IT”, which has no relevance to what’s being argued here.
Your entire point has been, “Progressives let fascism win because they didn’t like Harris.” Mine is, “You can’t expect demographic groups to show up for you at the ballot box when you don’t campaign for them.” We’re not saying the same thing, but if you can convince yourself that we are, then you’ll feel justified in blaming leftists instead of Democrats. Now, please, stop wasting my time.
Yes, you’re saying progressives didn’t show up at the ballot box because they weren’t campaigned for, right?