Eugene O'Neil

Like there are only two possibilities. Either the Democratic Party is GOOD at politics or all of this is incredibly earth shatteringly unpopular and I think presented with those two choices one is obvious

I've noticed the opposing team's fans only cheer when the opponents score on us. To win those fans over, I recommend we score on ourselves repeatedly; that will surely make them so happy they'll start supporting us. And I'm sure all our fans will keep cheering for us—who else is there to cheer for?

Nobody opposing Mamdani is "Left wing", especially not the Democrats.

I've never heard of such studies. And I can't possibly imagine it's because GAMERS of all people neglected to inform me that something offended them.

To be fair, I draw a distinction between genuine, sincere, committed Nazis, versus sophomoric contrarians who just think triggering libs is "funny".

Both need to be punched, but in the latter case you get to watch them learn an actual life lesson:

Turns out, having a broken nose ISN'T funny.

"Ribbit. Resist. Repeat."

Nancy Pelosi: We must find the next generation of Democratic leadership. Young, charismatic and exciting candidates who can energize the party. People that voters love because they're not 80 years old and sold out to big capital. Chuck Schumer (behind sniper rifle): Found one Pelosi: Take the shot

Even if it did turn a profit, that would just create a new pile of money, and then they'd be BACK AT SQUARE ONE of having to figure out some flashy new way to conspicuously squander it!

Truly, the burden of being rich never ends.

Actually, some Chinese researchers have written open source AI code that runs on cheap hardware that is legal for china to import, and gets perfectly fine results.

Techbro billionaires burn huge piles of cash because they HAVE huge piles of cash, and burning it is more fun than helping poor people.

Imagine we nominated a leftist, and lost. it would have been the leftist's fault for nominating a bad candidate. OBVIOUSLY.

Thankfully we nominated a centrist, who would have won if the stupid leftists just fucking VOTED for her.

Will those stupid leftists ever understand what "electable" means?

"Just forcing the shit sandwich down your gullet wasn't good enough, you should have pretend to ENJOY THE FLAVOR!"

- some random centrist who will never, EVER admit that their "tried and true" sandwich recipe from the 90s could possibly be the real problem.

Bush and Reagan were never SINCERELY fascist, but ever since Nixon and his "southern strategy" establishment republicans knowingly and shamelessly pandered to racist, reactionary right wing populists for votes.

They never MEANT for the inmates to take over the asylum, but it's still their fault.

I'd rather be in 2008 then today. We got Obama elected to the white house, and a super-majority to congress. Best of all, every single centrist who screamed he would fail looked like a fucking IDIOT.

Too bad the only thing centrists LEARNED was how to stop such embarrassing run-away "mistakes".

In hindsight, I regret suggesting the idea to them that John McCain would have been more electable than Hillary Clinton.

They might try to dig up his moldering corpse and NOMINATE it.

she got 48.2% of the popular vote, against a CLOWN IN A BURNING DUMPSTER.

Compare that to 2008 Obama, who won 52.9% of the vote against John McCain.

I wasn't a fan of John McCain in 2008, but if a monkey paw let us do 2016 over with him as the anointed centrist dem, I think HE could have won it.

Rs came for our health care in 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, and 2024. You can hate their goals, but you can't deny their MOXIE.

Dems don't have the moxie for even weak-sauce goals, like "roll back policy to 2011". Just vote D to *delay* more R.

Even aside from it being blatantly illegal and immoral, isn't even good strong-man theatrics.

C-list dictators of countries smaller than Rhode Island would be embarrassed to ADMIT that the mightiest feat they've accomplished lately is murdering some random unarmed fishermen.

All those other channels I can turn to are *also* owned by billionaires. They may take pride in not being quite as lurid and low-brow as fox, but if what I like is "guillotine the billionaires", it's not a coincidence that BILLIONAIRE-OWNED news outlets aren't saying what I want to hear.

i made a helpful reference

"I'll have you know that Dr. Frankenstein really wanted to help all people, even those of us who aren't living. How much more of a humanitarian can one person be?"

Well, "in theory" the private companies don't have to be so giant and consolidated... but any serious discussion of the fact that corporations are too big rapidly stops being just about "free speech", specifically.

What show is that?

H.P. Loveshack When I recall that night so many years ago, among the foul mists and brackish fens of the Great Southern Swamp, a great wave of shame and guilt ris...

www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/hp-...

That sounds like a 'perfectly reasonable' interpretation that some lesser apparatchik in the Trump administration will desperately try to reassure people is true, before Trump himself inevitably contradicts with an unhinged all-caps rant on Truth social.

he was a champion of free speech and if you disagree youre under arrest

If the tears AREN'T a performance, then the "ostensibly liberal" facade is 100% pure performance.

It is a testament to how consistently terrible Democrats are at politics that they can be babbling some nonsense about "true bipartisan negotiation", which pre-emptively grants republicans half the credit for anything accomplished, and yet it is still refreshingly more aggressive than I EXPECTED.

Correction: by the time you read this, you have ALREADY been accused of celebrating violence. They didn't wait for you to do anything to make that judgement, and there's nothing you can say to change their mind.