The Democrat is well known after a run for the Senate last year. But former Vice President Kamala Harris' decision about whether to run looms over the field.
Do you see what they do audience? Do you see how they move the argument to something other than what we were talking about? Their goal is to get you to engage on their grounds, their alternative terms, so they can structure the narrative (even if the shit they are spewing is also false). Its not even that they might be right on these secondary grounds they are choosing; in-fact, they’ll often choose intentionally losing grounds to try and get you to go there (this example included) to dissuade you from your original point.
Its a kind of narrative bait and switch; learn to look for it, and when you see it, it should raise a flag in you that the person you are having a discussion with is not engaging in good faith.
Keep advocating for the ratfuckers, I’m sure it will win you an election some day.
When was the last time progressives won?
Because liberals won 2020 and only missed out by a handful of votes in 2024.
We get it. You are team ratfuckers.
And liberals won 2020 because they formed a coalition with progressives. They basically handed them the entire platform in exchange for the candidate.
I’m on the team of people who have a chance to oppose MAGA.
When was the last time progressives won?
So your strategy for opposing MAGA is to advocate for candidates and strategies that lose to MAGA.
Got it.
Losing by a percent of the vote is better than not even getting a percent of the vote.
When was the last time progressives won?
Making up fictional narratives to support a losing strategy, but so long as it fits your preconceived biases, you are good with it.
Got it. You aren’t interested in winning. You are only interested in “having it your way”.
When was the last time progressives won?
Do you see what they do audience? Do you see how they move the argument to something other than what we were talking about? Their goal is to get you to engage on their grounds, their alternative terms, so they can structure the narrative (even if the shit they are spewing is also false). Its not even that they might be right on these secondary grounds they are choosing; in-fact, they’ll often choose intentionally losing grounds to try and get you to go there (this example included) to dissuade you from your original point.
Its a kind of narrative bait and switch; learn to look for it, and when you see it, it should raise a flag in you that the person you are having a discussion with is not engaging in good faith.