UsernameHere

Trump gets his trials delayed. You scapegoat democrats who tried to stop him. Trump thanks you for this.

Trump has indefinitely delayed his Jan. 6 criminal trial. Hundreds of his supporters haven't been so lucky.

Trump documents trial start delayed indefinitely, judge orders

Judge in Trump's hush money trial delays sentencing following Supreme Court immunity ruling

That’s my fault I read your comment wrong. I thought it said “I assume you think it’s ok Hunter gets to keep…”. My bad

Nope, he already paid the owed taxes in December of 2020.

Good to know you’re willing to make stuff up to support your bias.

Trump - JD Vance - Joe Rogan - Glenn Greenwald - Newsweek

The context was voters calling Harris a warmonger, not republican mouthpieces.

Liz Cheney is far more hated by the right than the left. (A flaw with the left from my perspective.) BTW: I'm still waiting for any evidence whatsoever that progressives didn't show for Harris.

The graph on you link is blocked by a pop up so I’ll have to take your words for it. In my experience though yes this is anecdotal voters were most influenced by inflation. Which is supported by these polls. Hated or not I don’t think she had a net negative result on the outcome.

And every time the Democrats move to the right, so do the Republicans.

Democrats have since started working with progressives like AOC and Bernie which is a move to the left. But you aren’t the first I’ve seen to claim otherwise by saying democrats have moved right.

In the last 3 presidential elections, Democrats were so ineffective that they lost to Trump.

Trump lost in 2020 and also lost the popular vote in 2016…

I literally explained this immediately after I said it. You said I was nitpicking them because I pointed out that the Pew study didn’t support your claim and the other source was a screenshot on Reddit aka not credible in any way. Then you claimed I didn’t supply a source for my claim despite the fact that I did. All this to accuse me of arguing in bad faith and use that as an excuse to not supply sources for your claims even after I have.

That's literally what the Pew study showed. Your unfounded and ridiculous argument that they vote Republican notwithstanding. You could argue that they disproportionately vote for third party candidates but, since the libertarian party regularly outperforms the greens, progressives are far more loyal than the right. Anyways, third parties were clearly irrelevant this cycle, so now you have to pretend progressives are voting for Republicans.

The pew study only showed that people on the farthest ends of the political spectrum were more likely to vote. It doesn’t support your claim that progressives voted democrat in 2024.

The example you brought up of voters in AOCs district who voted for Biden and AOC in 2020 but voted Trump and AOC in 2024 reflects that.

So, "just trust me bro". Anecdotal evidence, especially filtered though a partisan hack, is worthless.

There isn’t conclusive evidence to support every claim. As long as we admit when we are referring to anecdotal evidence then we are arguing in good faith. That’s what I’ve been doing. You refuse to do that and want to treat your opinions and assumptions as fact.

Funny how you assume that AOC/Trump voters are progressives voting for a Republican and not conservatives voting for a progressive, or liberals voting for a conservative and a progressive.

There isn’t enough evidence to go into that much detail. But based on this:

Ocasio-Cortez is one of the Democrats from across the country who performed better than Vice President Kamala Harris in districts where voters appeared to approach the ballot with an a la carte sensibility. That is, they voted across party lines and supported candidates who seemed to have diametrically opposing agendas. A member of the left-leaning group of members of Congress known as “the squad” Ocasio-Cortez was surprised to see her New York 14th congressional district swing heavily toward Trump even as voters there showed strong support for her candidacy. In 2020, Trump won 22% of the vote in AOC’s district compared to Joe Biden’s 77%. Harris did not fare nearly as well. Support for Trump jumped to 33%, and support for Harris dropped to 65%.  

Support for Trump jumped to 33%, and support for Harris dropped to 65%. 

AOC is left leaning indicating her supporters are too and in her district her supporters increased their votes for Trump in 2024 compared to 2020 and decreased their votes for the democratic candidate in 2024 compared to 2020. Meaning this is an example of left leaning voters voting for Trump in 2024.

AOC is left leaning. So for her to win, her district needs to be made up of enough left leaning voters. And when she asked them to explain why they voted for Trump this response indicates they were not conservatives voting for a progressive:

While it is not the most sophisticated method of surveying voters, the responses were swift and candid: 

• “…wanted change so I went with Trump and blue for the rest of the ballot to put some brakes”

You think establishment Democrats would be more popular without criticism from progressives, but you actually have it wrong. This is a populist age and you can't just make voters love the establishment, at least not without putting them in camps for brainwashing.

No, I think the 2024 election was one between fascism and the only other option which just happens to be what you call establishment democrat. I don’t care who the alternative to fascism is… they are better than fascism. And the undecided middle voters that don’t pay close attention, hear the criticisms from the left towards democrats along with the propaganda from the right towards democrats and the result was Trump winning. And if Trump gets what he wants we will never vote again.

Pointing out your shitty attitude and condescending tone isn’t the same as policing it. By all means keep talking to people that way as you try to convince voters to join your revolution.

I've pinched my nose and voted for Democrats my whole adult life in every election, donated to campaigns, voted in primaries, written to representatives and senators, been a member of a Union, and attended town halls, marches, and rallies. Don't ever talk to me about apathy.

I’ve done those things too. Without spreading apathy. Come down off your high horse.

Here is the DNC leadership.

Here are the next contenders for DNC chair.

Here's a site to track congressperson's voting records.

Go to and participate in the candidate forums in January. Ask pointed questions about what their strategy to contend with the GOP will be in light of the recent defeats. Watch who votes for who in the February DNC chair election.

Get the word out and vote in the primaries against representatives who willingly fellate corporatists and/or dance around the glaring failures of strategy, messaging, or are complicit in the disenfranchisement of the working class.

This is actually a productive response that doesn’t involve sowing apathy towards the only alternative to fascism. Thanks, I’ll be doing these things and I’m being genuine when say that.

But honestly, anything I say will be just more food for your trolling, or you're butt-hurt when people call out failures and controlled opposition. Whatever it is, kick rocks barefoot.

Aaaaaand you’re right back to cutting off your nose to spite your face. Maybe you’ve been unsuccessful in changing the Democratic Party despite all you’ve done because of your attitude.

You want to shit on our only alternative to fascism and then pretend you aren’t helping fascism win. Then claim anyone pointing that out is trolling.

How do we “oust establishment DNC” by voting? Who is the establishment DNC? Are you saying we need to vote for the opposition? We need to vote in the primary? Haven’t we already been doing that? How do we know who is establishment and who isn’t?

You’re being vague and claiming my reading comprehension sucks because your aren’t actually saying anything.

Harris campaigning with Liz Cheney was supposed to appeal to right leaning voters but backfired because it fed the narrative of Harris as a warmonger.

No republicans I know have referred to Harris as a warmonger but I have heard complaints from progressives about her stance on Gaza. So your comment implies that her campaigning with Cheney backfired by costing her votes from progressives. Which reinforces what you claim to be an establishment democrat narrative: that an increase amount of progressives didn’t vote for Harris in 2024. So you’re contradicting yourself again.

She damaged herself with the very same right leaning voters that she was trying to appeal to.

Again, I've only heard complaints from progressives about her stance on the war in Gaza. In my experience republicans only complained about the money being spent in Gaza and Ukraine because they were told that was the cause of inflation.

The left is used to Democrats leaning right because that's been a constant since at least Bill Clinton. But Harris making rightward moves that damaged her with right leaning voters was insanity. The Democratic establishment lives in a bubble that hasn't changed it's modeling since the 90s.

Since the 90s there have been 9 presidential elections and democrats have won 5 of them. It makes perfect sense for them to continue with at least some of the strategies that have earned them the majority of elections.

Asking for evidence to a claim is fine, but not when done in bad faith. First of all, I am not the only one here making claims.

How is asking for evidence done in bad faith? By doing so I found out that there was some truth to your claim that people on the further ends of the political spectrum tend to be more engaged.

Also I found out that there was no credibility to your claim that “we” know how to reach people and that democrats can’t be interested.

Second of all, you are nitpicking half the links I gave, while ignoring what you can't nitpick. You made no acknowledgement of that Pew study at all. I supplied my proof, and my complaint was for having to cast pearls before swine and the shitty way you went about asking for it without providing any evidence of your own claims, or even arguments as to why your claims should be believed.

I pointed out that a screenshot of a heat map with no legend or any of the required information like quantity of donors or quantity of donations posted on Reddit, is not evidence of anything. That’s not nitpicking. That’s telling you what you should already know.

The Pew study showed that people furthest left and right on the spectrum were more politically engaged. They defined that as taking more about politics and being more likely to vote. Your claim was that the further left someone’s ideology the more likely they are to vote and vote democrat. I acknowledge the Pew study supports that they are more likely to vote but it doesn’t say they vote democrat, they are just as likely to be voting 3rd party.

As I said, I'll be happy to find a better link for you on the fundraising map, as soon as you start providing some evidence for your own bald assertions. It's not going to be a one way street.

What bald assertions are you referring to? I told you why I claimed that progressives didn’t show up to vote for Harris. I acknowledge that it is based on anecdotal evidence. You reinforced that anecdotal evidence by saying it’s true.

Well, you would know bad faith arguments, but that's hardly applicable in this case. We are talking about how Democrats perform in elections so there is no reasonable ambiguity when I refer to Democrats "doing better". That's the last I'm going to say on this dumb side argument.

Yes, this isn’t my first day on the internet. For that reason I am familiar with bad faith arguments. “Doing better” could imply a better approval rating, more progressive policies, higher voter turnout, winning over more republican voters, winning over more progressive voters, earning more seats in Congress or the house and on and on. I didn’t even put effort into all the different things “doing better” could refer to but you’re getting upset because I’m calling out a common tactic in bad faith arguments.

An interview is not a town hall, and I didn't just say that Bernie did a town hall on Fox, I linked to the video. Unlike Harris' interview, the town hall included a right leaning audience that was responding well to left leaning arguments, which directly addressed what you asked me to address.

That “right leaning audience” sure did like his response about trusting scientists when it comes to corona virus and climate change. So the opposite of how a right leaning audience would respond. I live in a red state and there were political ads at this time of politicians killing Dr. Fauci. Those politicians won. This audience is far from “right leaning”.

Even Fox News’s Bret Baier Admits Harris Outsmarted Him in Interview

None of this supports your claim that progressives know how to win over the disengaged voters in the middle of the ideological spectrum.

If you want to move the goalposts and look at just election results, that's fine. Look into how many voters who split their ticket between AOC and Trump, and what they said when interviewed. You can find your own links until you start supporting your claims with something other than repetition.

This supports my point about the Pew study you shared: the farthest left voters are more likely to vote, just not necessarily for democrats.

Which brings us full circle back to my original point. A remarkable amount of progressives didn’t vote for Harris.

Split ticket voters offer some bracing lessons for the Democratic Party

There’s the evidence to support the claim.

You still haven’t supported your original claims.

Fascism is when going around Congress. Got it

Is that a talking point? If so, progressives aren't sticking to it very well. I mean, it's true, but only because being further left is also further populist. Progressive analysis is far more extensive than "not left enough". What you are talking about is a straw man constructed by establishment democrats. You love sources, so show me one progressive arguing this way.

You say it’s true but claim it’s a straw man constructed by establishment democrats, which is it? You’re contradicting yourself. Every thread on lemmy regarding Harris losing has someone saying it and now I can add you to the sources since you’re saying it’s true.

I am, because this stuff is easy to lookup, and your arguments are nothing but uncritically accepted vibes.

That’s not how the burden of proof works. You make the claim, you provide evidence to support the claim. Otherwise your claim is made up. If that needs to be explained to you then It’s no wonder you’re posting Reddit threads of screenshots with no sources as a source for your claims.

It's a map of individual donors by county in the 2020 Democratic primary. The reddit link was the first to come up when I searched. I'll find you a better link as soon as you show me a progressive saying Democrats lost because they weren't left enough.

My source is the comment section of every post on lemmy regarding Harris losing. If I share an article claiming the same you’ve already primed the argument that it’s an establishment democrat straw man while also admitting it’s true.

If I have to explain to you that Democrats doing better in elections means getting more votes, I'll be writing fucking novels. How about using your mind just a little?

This is how people making bad faith arguments move the goalpost. They make vague statements and when they are proven wrong they say they weren’t talking about that thing you assumed, they were referring to something else. The only way to prevent this is to call it out and make them be specific about their statements.

That's a little understated. You don't see the significance of the furthest left Democratic candidate getting through to a fox news audience as applicable to the question?

For that to be applicable to the question, he would have to be the only one that did it… Harris interviewed on Fox News also.

So I guess I’m not missing something, you are.

You really don't get it and, at this point, I'm happy to just leave it that way.

I’m sure you’re happy to run away without any sources to your claims.