You’re so right and smart. On that note it’s weird that nobody wants the US to bomb their own schools when an active shooter is holding up there.
Level the whole school. That will prevent future shooters.
Work is slow.
You’re so right and smart. On that note it’s weird that nobody wants the US to bomb their own schools when an active shooter is holding up there.
Level the whole school. That will prevent future shooters.
My responses were brief. I should be more clear and less of a dick. I’m sorry for that.
As I said earlier in the thread that you didn’t read or didnt understand, “The politically adept way to answer protesters with a substantial base of support that you don’t want to alienate is to say, ‘I hear you.’”
If she wants their votes she needs policy and actions that will win those votes.
It’s a protest at a press conference. When protesting its beneficial to take your message to the press and politicians. I’m not claiming it was their turn to speak because the entire point of a protest is taking a stand and making your voice heard even if it isn’t convenient.
Historically effective protest movements weren’t convenient for politicians.
I’m sorry, I had no idea this concept could be so alien to anybody.
Protests are not effective if they can be ignored. THE ENTIRE POINT IS THAT IT ISN’T THEIR TURN TO SPEAK.
Edit: The politically adept way to answer protesters with a substantial base of support that you don’t want to alienate is to say, “I hear you.”
It likely is, but she most recently used the same phrase to shutdown pro-palestine protestors at a rally.
Describing people begging for a genocide to stop as just having hurt feelings and being impatient is a wild approach.
Protests aren’t supposed to be silent. That’s the entire point and the only way to get anything done. If Harris was already campaigning on a ceasefire they would have nothing to protest about and she wouldn’t be interrupted. These are constituents making their voices heard.
“I’m speaking.”
She has used this multiple times, but most recently it was to shut down people protesting the genocide of palestinians.
Edit: Who’s downvoting my factual and verifiable answer to their question?
Leave language alone motherfuckers not speaking in Old English. smh
After reading I now appreciate David Gerard’s dedication.
The date?
Yes and no. It’s the same result if Biden is elected, but if Biden’s name on the ticket is shown to depress voter turnout then he may not get elected in the first place.
Harris. She is polling better and she has access to the campaign funds. I don’t like either, but I’ll take almost anybody over Trump. I wish people took him seriously enough to run better candidates.
You can’t say that everybody polls worse and then agree that Kamala Polls better.
Kamala would be the obvious choice if the party rallies behind her. She would most easily have access to the campaign funds.
I didn’t like Biden as a candidate before becuase of all of the reasons he’s been a favorite of the donors that you’re mad at for no longer supporting him. I don’t think he has the best shot at besting Trump. The media and donors suddenly turning on Biden is because of his dismal polling and a debate performance that worsened it. They are interested in their investment above all else. Biden is a career politician and he has been a favorite of wealthy donors until he became a liability.
I’m curious why you’re so ride or die for Biden. I’d prefer candidates other than Biden or Harris, but I’ll support either over Trump. I would prefer if the one picked is most likely to beat Trump though. I don’t like Christofacism.
The uncomfortable reality is Biden’s already bad approval rating will continue to worsen as the election gets closer and his minor flubs add up.
Do you want to tap in somebody else now and get to work or wait until its too late?
Pretending that there’s no possible other candidate doesn’t make it true either. Other candidates haven’t had to lobby delegates at convention since the 60s but the mechanism is in place for that. Another option is for the party to rally behind Kamala who is polling above Biden and who would also have access to previous their tickets campaign funds.
I agree that Roe V Wade is this election’s spoiler and Biden has been doing a lackluster job at drilling into that.
I would literally even take Kamla who is also unpopular, but I’m sure has a better shot. She also has the benefit of having access to Biden’s campaign donations if he drops out.
Manybof these articles are also listing all of the other options. That’s why I said literally anybody who doesn’t have a sub 40% approval rating.
It’s easier to write people off for typing lol than it is to refute their argument.
Edit: Trump is unpopular and Biden is still down significantly in the polls. There are options to run other people. Why would you possibly not want to run a candidate that is more likely to win?
I’m getting downvoted in other comments, but nobody is telling me how the polling deficit is good strategy.
It is not just that he’s old. Biden has such a low approval rating that it’s comparable to Trump’s when he lost reelection during a pandemic.
If you truly do care about putting up a fight against Project 2025 then it is important that Democrats run almost anybody else.
Also, the articles about Biden’s perceived inability to get elected are not a waste of time. The donor class is finally recognizing what many of us have known and are pushing for a change. I can kick and scream all I want about how I don’t want Biden but I don’t have money to fund campaigns.
Edit: You can boo me. I’ve seen you bet money on a corpse winning a race.
Pointing out Biden’s flaws is not the problem. Biden’s flaws are the problem.
Also I don’t think that wealthy donors should have this much influence. I want to clear that up if it came across like I did.
Let them have trial by combat
/s