The leading edge of the Nazi thought machine is already saying it.

https://bsky.app/profile/elnorterecuerda.bsky.social/post/3lsyrlsj3wc2x

These aren’t contractors. They’re mercenaries.

He’s got a particular sort of experience that only recently became valuable in a president. The Supreme Court says that during official duties the president is legally immune for all crimes. Give that man immunity and let’s see where things end up.

So we should run only run black men since your shitty understanding of statistics dictates they have a 100% chance to win.

Luigi, allegedly, doesn’t let the rules get in the way of doing what’s right.

Sure, if you’re trying to win as a Republican, being female is pretty hard. Luckily Democrats don’t win elections by seeking far right votes.

Overall, 150 women are set to serve in the 119th Congress starting next year, down just slightly from the current record of 152 (which represents 28 percent of all members). As has long been the case though, there are sharp partisan imbalances here: 42 percent of incoming Democratic members and just 15 percent of incoming Republican members are women. And based on this year’s results, that imbalance doesn’t appear to be narrowing, particularly as female candidates within the Republican Party face persistent structural and cultural barriers to running and winning.

I wonder if you read this exact article and just cherry picked the number to justify your stance.

Uh, there are lots of Christian denominations who allow women to lead churches. And majority Catholic nations who have happily elected women (like the Latino countries who you people like to also say are too dedicated to machismo to vote for women).

Don’t justify your bigotry by an appeal to tradition of the people who already won’t vote for Democrats. This isn’t a well thought through argument, it’s just a reactionary justification.

Then why did you add an “a” in front of an adjective? It’s either “I’m Democratic” (adjective) or “I’m a Democrat” (noun). This isn’t dictating language, they’re two different parts of speech. The name of the party is “the Democratic Party” and its members are “Democrats”. They’re proper nouns, not linguistic styling. There is no “Democrat Party”.

The people who try to rename the party aren’t doing a whoopsie, it’s a conscious effort by conservatives to say the thing in a dumb way for extremely dumb political purposes. It takes effort to do that.

I really assumed Murkowski would be in opposition and Collins would vote a concerned yes. Murkowski just recently expressed potential openness to supporting Democratic control, FFS.

It very much does not. I think it’s designed to make the nominee look like a runaway victor rather than to fairly gauge the opinion of the primary voters. They want the primary to come to a decisive end as soon as possible and the consequence is voters not really understanding whether it’s ok to vote for your favorite or to immediately start voting strategically (the answer depends on how well you think they’ll do). If it was straight proportional we could just vote how we wanted and if they didn’t win their delegates could still influence who did.

The ticker is very relevant. ICE is now a world-ranked military force. They’re building concentration camps. Even if it were actually just for immigrants, eventually they’ll be deported and you have a bulked up secret police and empty gulags just sitting there waiting to be used.

They all just took a year off with Obama apparently. The dedicated bigots already have their party. They’re not needed for Democrats to win.

The primaries for president are run differently. They’re proportional, but not evenly. There’s minimum amounts to get any delegates and then some confusing weighting that gives more delegates than simple division to those who get more votes. And then at the convention, those delegates can then vote for anyone if their candidate isn’t going to win.

So there’s a spoiler effect, but not nearly so prominent as FPTP. And the way primaries work, poorly performing candidates will generally just drop out. Not to mention “young people” aren’t really Buttigieg’s constituency. He basically tied with Bernie in Iowa.

Do you know the difference between adjectives and nouns?

Credentials are not what make a good candidate.

Lol, sure man. Definitely no one ever makes an argument in an editorial. It’s not possible as their opponent is not present, may not even read it, and frequently will not be allowed to publish a rebuttal to the same audience.

Arguments are about the audience, not the opponent. Making a straw man when your opponent is not present is the most common form of the fallacy. When they’re there they might just say that’s not what they’re argument is.

Lol, what? Do you seriously think you cannot create a straw man argument in anything but direct debate? Sure Mr. Smartman.

Hint, logical fallacies are about the logic, not the debate.

Just because you feel like the straw men deserve it doesn’t change that you’re arguing with hypotheticals versions you’ve created instead of actual people.

You’ve literally defined the argument of an opposing group to look stupid so you can dunk on them. You’re arguing with a straw man. This isn’t even a critique of your rhetorical basis though, it’s just normal Internet lameness.

The swing voters and the non-swing but intermittent voters will just take gut checks about how their life is going and figure out which side wants that to change. Each side, when they’re up for change, will pretend their chosen policies will fix everything, and enough people don’t really have the wherewithal to recognize whether it’s actually going to do anything.

The truth is, for both sides, usually it won’t, because even the good stuff is usually tinkering on the long term or hoping that business subsidies trickle down to regular people. Before Trump mostly nothing happened to really impact people’s lives, and Trump’s stuff is all terrible. So the same stresses that prompted them to believe the other guy’s changes would finally do something are still there and they’re now looking for a new lie to believe in.