? But it worked. The party that labelled it's opponents as paedophiles, satanists, cannibals, rapists and pet-stealing thieves is the party that won.
Right?!? He wrote that with a straight face, and completely missed the irony. That was LITERALLY the entirety of the Trump campaign: 5% vaguely alluding to policies surrounding divisive and made-up issues, and 95% shouting "the democrats" down with insults, lies, and hyperbole. Trump bullied his way into office on the backs of the uneducated and misinformed masses, but it's because the democrats were calling him on that exact shit??
Indeed. Its weird that the side that says ''It reflects badly on our enemies if they call us racist when we're being racist!'' also has no problem calling the other side every insult under the sun.
Based on the last election, the Dems need more lying, insulting and saying they are willing to do many crimes and how the are going to do the opposite of the constitution to win the next election
Unironically this. Dem are seen as the party that does almost nothing. They're the natural governing party, people who want change will punt for the outsider party, who says they'll break all the rule, because of how "unfair" the current system is.
They are the party of functional government without really having to worry about things and they don't demand credit for their actions. Which bites them in the ass cause if government is working well then no one thinks about it so some asshole can claim its not doing anything and we shouldn't be spending money on it. They are too good at government for their own good.
See, you are falling into the trap of the right that the far left are democrats, they are not, they are more likely to vote democrat but they have like 2 or 3 members in the house at most. No political power but republicans love to say they are controlling the democratic party. The democratic party barely even panders to them, but since the right controls all media (turns out whining endlessly is really effective) they get to decide what is true.
Compared to the alternative, yes. Otherwise, not so much.
A. They are totally the party of functional government.
I would agree with C. Supporting the genocide is not the reason they struggle at keeping government functioning.
Yes yes yes, you just want a genocide against jews, we get it, but try to stay on topic.
Accusing someone of wanting a genocide against Jews is a novel way if to keep on topic.
Even pretending that the US isn't supporting a genocide (or wasn't under the Dems), it's still a jump from that to claim that I want a different genocide.
Because its not a genocide. I say you want a genocide because if you think this is a genocide then you want the whole from the river to the sea thing which a battle cry of kicking out/killing all the jews. So you do support a genocide from the other direction.
Which is a jump. How about nobody does any genocide? Not doing any genocide is often not considered a terribly outlandish position to hold.
No one is doing a genocide there. Right now its just a fucked up war, not a genocide.
That is just absolute horseshit. That conclusion doesn't follow from the premise in any logical way.
