Malcolm wrote:
Libs wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
AOC would be a horrific choice if the goal is winning an election, and I guess they'd have to go with another lame nobody named Tim as VP to keep up their streak of only picking ineffective losers for that role. Dems are apparently addicted to only making bad choices, which is nothing new, but it's still a shame that they refuse to learn or move on from whining about their tone-deaf nonsense. These people deserve to keep losing if this dreck is what they offer the public.
New York still has time to come to its senses re: Mamdani, but if they actually pick that dipshit then I hope the whole place collapses in on itself as a case study. And I would absolutely *never* vote for AOC or her ilk as she is a moronic sack of garbage with shit for brains. If you can't tell, I kind of hate everything about these people. I wonder how much longer until I vote Republican...
Wild that you think Mamdani is “an ineffective loser” and are ranting and raving about tone deafness when he could be one of the most progressive mayors a major city has ever had and his opposition was Andrew Cuomo, of all people. Exactly what do you want out of the Democrats because the math isn’t mathing here.
Sounds like you’re already there voting Republican, dude. You have a Bill Maher avatar though so this does sort of track!
First of all, try reading what I said again as I was clearly talking about the two waste of space VPs named Tim that Hillary and Kamala selected--who were both
ineffective losers. And Bill Maher isn't a Republican, at all (nor am I), so you're two for two in not knowing at all what you're talking about. Those who go right to "Well, you're obviously already a Republican because..." are such ridiculous people to me. I have never voted for a Republican for any major office (maybe some local kind of stuff), yet I've heard this kind of thing over and over for many years now from lefty people who are apparently incapable of understanding there are many with different views who aren't automatically some MAGA nutter.
As for Mamdani, his defund the police/anti-Israel/pro-intifada idiocy is enough for me to consider him a no-go. He's full of other idiotic perspectives and childish ideas that I don't feel like listing (there are plenty of articles summarizing his many flaws already), and he's a "progressive" only in the demented and aggressively woke version of the term where people screaming about their BIG FEELINGS is all that matters.
I'd just like Democrats to be sane, reasonable, and have a backbone (Fetterman & Torres are a couple of the small group who actually push back, at least). That'd be a nice change of pace from being a bunch of limp morons who can't seem to do anything but whine about racism, sexism, transphobia, Islamophobia, and simply bitch about everything Trump. I guess that's too big an ask...
That’s an overload of superficial projection.
The “reason” of people like Bill Maher, or Sam Harris certainly isn’t sufficiently rigorous, objective, or conclusive by any serious standard. I think I’m being generous actually. They just double down on assumptions and premises that they refuse to consider as false or questionable, and they depend on unarticulated emotion and the ironic threat of controversy and a dubious set of insidious double standards to try to silence decent. When they claim to be reasonable, it really means agreeable, and non-contrarian from their world-view. So long as they maintain that pretense, they expect social conformity to their platform from any who share enough of their philosophy, or might try to challenge that social hegemony. They make political claims, while claiming them to be reasonable, because they are political (I’ve explained how my posts are different).
But like religion, and human (or Homo Sapien) nature, more generally, they try to shift the burden of proof where it doesn’t belong, and don’t feel required to sufficiently support, or have rigorous enough reasons or conclusions. They explicitly intend to argue in a way, and for a purpose, that is subject essentially to “begging the question”; they have verbalized that their goal is to support their predetermined and desired conclusions, rather than seeking truthful answers regardless. I mean specifically Bill Maher, Sam Harris, and people like them (similar criticisms could be made of others, but not this entire political phenomenon). I don’t mean all “new atheists” or all skeptics or secularists (I don’t subscribe to the label “atheist” because it has no positive, affirmative, or tangible definition of substance or meaning).
