Republicans have cooked up this prototypical Dem who wants to take away their guns, keep any hint of religion out of politics, heavily the tax the most wealthy, offer health care to all and who thinks European socialism is not so bad after all and capitalism is deeply flawed.
And I realized...I'm that Dem. Yep, I believe the second amendment only guarantees a right to own a gun to someone who is in a well-organized militia. I'm a strict constructionist on church-state separation. I don't believe we need mega-billionaires and think...
...those who make vastly more than they need should be tax heavily. I believe health care is a right. That the environment is more important than corporate profits. And that Europe (especially Northern Europe) has the public welfare vs. free market balance better than we do.
I think economic Darwinist Anglo-American capitalism has wreaked havoc on the planet, caused great inequity that is both immoral and threatens stability, and that it must be reined in. So, sorry world, I'm that guy.
And when the GOP says there are Dems like that I think, "Yes, there are!" and "That's why I am a Dem."
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Every single time you engage in the delusion that Trump has a "policy position" on traditional issues you normalize him. Trump has no beliefs, no traditional policy views. For him, policies are like his blue suit & dumb long red ties, a costume he wears to hide who he really is.
He is a terrorist calling himself a freedom fighter. This election is not about his tax policy versus that of Kamala Harris, even if he has proposals in that area. It is about the fact that he is a criminal, a traitor, a fraudster, a liar, the worst president in our history...
...a terrible human being who seeks to reward himself & his friends at the expense of everyone else. Everything he does is first and foremost about what is in it for him and occasionally for his supporters (because he needs to pay them off to get what he wants for himself.)
Given the number of ways that a candidate can communicate directly with voters--the relevance and wisdom of doing so through intermediaries who will filter the news and who often will bend it to suit other agendas has diminished. That seems reasonable to me.
The argument that the press is the objective presenter of facts has been weakened as virtually all media seek to adjust their presentation of content to suit business or political objectives. There are fewer and fewer journalists who can be relied upon to seek objective truth.
Too many are compromised not only by the agenda of their company's owners but by their own history of access journalism or sensationalism or focusing on the trending rather than the important story. They howl at being ignored or bypassed. But they share some of the blame.
The argument that Harris is somehow not speaking enough to the press is ridiculous on several levels: 1.) She actually does speak to the press, 2.) She has been visible constantly since she became the candidate, 3.) She has been clear and detailed about all her policy goals.
4.) She has been readily available to the press for four years. There are few questions about her that have not already been asked and answered. 5.) The goal of the campaign is for her to communicate with voters. So far, they seem to have responded well to what she has said.
6.) Her opponent is actually not campaigning, is primarily speaking to patsies in the press when he does speak to the media, and lies constantly so it doesn't matter what he is asked because he won't answer truthfully.
Folks, if you want a US policy toward Israel and Gaza that is more focused on relieving the suffering the people of Gaza and achieving a lasting, just peace, disrupting the campaign of the one person most likely to deliver that is a bad idea. Especially when...
...she has indicated a willingness to meet with groups that share your views. She may not agree with all of your ideas and suggestions. But she is by far your best and only legitimate hope of change and weakening her is a crazily self-destructive process.
You may not like this reality. But you would like the alternatives--Trump or the status quo--much much much less. You may not feel you can wait for our political processes to work out...but frankly, there is no alternative choice that is available or possible.
To all the geniuses who feel Harris should have picked Shapiro to "win Pennsylvania" I ask, um, when was the last time that was the reason a VP was picked? (Hint: It is seldom if ever the reason a VP candidate was picked.)
Here, let me do some quick math for you. Biden certainly didn't pick Harris to win a contested state. Trump picked neither Vance nor Pence to win contested states. HRC picked Tim Kaine to help in Va., that's true, and he helped. It was an outlier.
Do you think McCain picked Palin to win Alaska? Edwards did not help Kerry win North Carolina. Did Cheney get picked to help Bush in Montana? No. How about Lieberman to help Gore in Connecticut. No. Clinton did win Al Gore's home state of Tennessee...
The recent discussion about Biden has gone through phases. The first was about the debate performance. The second was about whether that was a signal of potential problems to come. But we are now in a third phase which turns more fears about the state of the campaign.
These concerns are largely from political professionals (not commentators). They turn not just on setbacks since the debate but on the fact that the campaign was seemingly spinning its wheels even beforehand. I sense a bunch of it is from worried folks down the ballot.
These conversations seem to be continuing despite Biden's repeated statements that he is definitely running and in it for the long haul and have not been helped by recent polling data, the Cook Report downgrade of Dem battleground prospects, etc.