politics

My analogy is that it was like someone threw a molotov cocktail through your window, but you let the house burn down because the window didn't stop the bottle.

I'm not a politician. I developed an entirely different set of skills. Throwing away my career at the potential of reskilling is absurd.

And Dems weren't doing their job. I'm tired of people pretending like that's acceptable. I canvass. I get people ready to vote. I do my part.

I can't even tell you the last time a Dem policy benefitted me directly. What I have in common with them really just boils down to them being the only opposition right now. I pushed Harris like we had to and I'll never forgive them for running such an unlovable candidate. They knew what they were doing. The second there's another serious option I'm gone. Dems complete lack of opposition makes them complicit in everything that's happening.

The Harris campaign spent a billion and a half dollars on "getting voters engaged" and she still lost anyway. All the phone-banking and door-knocking in the world can't overcome the fundamental problem of refusing to adopt policies the people actually want!

So please, explain to me exactly what the fuck kind of "stepping up" you expect randos from the Internet, who had no ability to affect the campaign's platform, to actually fucking do?!

Probably the part where I didn't receive over a billion dollars in donations to actually get media attention. A lot of people have been campaigning to get people to ditch the Democrats because they're controlled corporate stooges for the last few decades, I think you were shouting at them for supporting third parties at the time.

I realize people have difficulty parsing language sometimes, but she did not say “may signal” she said “signals”. She said he is doing exactly what you both are saying he is doing. Basically: You appear to be in violent agreement with her.

"Glass houses," buddy. Check the sentence again:

Legal expert Peter Keisler criticized Trump’s pardons of Capitol rioters, arguing they signal that crimes committed in support of Trump’s agenda may go unpunished.

The future/hypothetical part of it that the person you replied to was complaining about wasn't the "signals" part, it was the "may go unpunished" part. In other words, the legal expert in question isn't in denial of what Trump's pardons "signal;" he (not "she," BTW -- you misread that, too) is in denial of the fact that the effect being signaled is already currently happening.

One was killed by the cops, too