A party that built its message around a strong, firm, and unequivocal case to end this war now would very suddenly draw attention to the undoubtedly dozens of congressional Democrats who would not echo this line. So what we get instead is limp process critiques, demanding pointless hearings, and bizarre attacks that Trump is not doing regime change fast enough. Polls repeatedly show the most common criticism of Democrats is not that they are too far left or too anti-war, but that they are too weak, that they don’t stand for anything.
Centering criticism of a deeply unpopular war on those carrying it out for not filling out the right paperwork or producing a satisfactory slideshow — rather than making clear, normative objections to a war of aggression — feeds directly into this perception. But perhaps it’s a perception Democratic leaders, and the pro-war, pro-Israel donors who fund their political careers, would prefer over the alternative.
So, no end game?
No actual plan?
Your questions have zero useful context. Are you asking about Trump’s end game? The Democrats’? Their critics’? Their apologists’? Mine?
I apologize for overestimating your reading skills.
The first step to mastering your fear is to face it.
Again, you display poor reading skills.
“I apologize for overestimating your reading skills.”
Nothing I wrote indicates fear.
In and of itself, no, it doesn’t.
In context though, it’s a dismissive evasion, and they generally do.
In context though, it’s a dismissive evasion, and they generally do.
Hmmmmmmm, a ‘dismissive evasion?’
Like when you mimicked poor reading skills to avoid admitting you had no actual, workable plan?
Your accusation is an admission.
If you want to continue, give me the plan for winning elections in 2026.
Otherwise, we’re done.