This feels like a trauma response, haha. I’m right there with you.

If anything it telegraphs uncertainty with the PA joke.

More like rehashing old shit. Vaccines are pretty settled science as well.

At best, one candidate doesn’t do enough to oppose genocide, while the other candidate offers their full throated support, advising that Isreal “just finish the job”. We’re not looking for a perfect candidate, we’re looking for the best candidate. And there is absolutely a candidate with a better track record of compassion, and a likelier chance of fighting the fire rather than fueling it in exchange for political favors.

You’re using some pretty high flying rhetoric for someone who isn’t citing any specifics. Which “horrible shit” are you most concerned with? The 20 billion dollar settlement she won for people with foreclosed homes? The 1.1 billion dollar settlement she won for defrauded students and veterans? The tie breaking votes she cast in the Senate, more than anyone in history, that helped pass among other things the 1.9 trillion dollar covid 19 stimulus, and the inflation reduction act, which generated 115 billion in tech investments and generated an estimated 95 thousand new jobs? Her explicit opposition to the death penalty? Her work against hate crimes? Her defense of the LGBTQ community? She is capable, intelligent, and proven.

Really, nothing at all qualifies her? Not her 6 years as an attorney general? Or her 4 years as a senator? Her 3 years as vice president? She’s better educated, has a better resume, doesn’t have 30 something felonies, and isn’t 78 years old. We already tried Trump as president once and America survived by the skin of our teeth. And he has not improved as a candidate in any way in the intervening 4 years.

Say you need a life saving operation. Your choices are: a skilled surgeon who is suspected to have cheated on their spouse, George Clooney from the hit TV show ER, or a mediocre at best veterinarian. This is essentially the state of things. A qualified person, a fictional character, and a person who is tangentially qualified at best.

The country needs a life saving operation. Harris is extremely qualified candidate who at worst carries some of the murky ethical baggage of any career politician. Trump is not only unqualified, but uniquely contraindicated (vindictive, foreign debts, exceedingly old, litany of bonafide legal issues, unrepentant rapist). And Stein is at best a politician shaped object, who is perhaps qualified enough to be a pundit or a podcast host.

For the safety of people of color, for women, for the environment, for the rule of law, for diplomacy, for the economy, there is only one pragmatic choice, and that choice is Harris.

Exactly. I have no doubt Harris will win the popular vote. Unfortunately that’s not necessarily good enough to win. And even if she wins, Trump supporters are absolutely not interested in a civilized society.

Trump would just accuse Kamala of raping an even younger, even darker skinned child and his base would clap their hand and coo and drool and continue to babble on.

I’m waiting with bated breath for this to be picked up by a more neutral source so I can boost the shit out of this without being dismissible.

Tese are the types of people who think Sandy Hook was a hoax.

For the sake of argument, let’s just say sure, both sides gerrymander just as egregiously (which frankly, they do not.) This would makes it a wash balancing out pros and cons of either choice as it relates specifically to the 2024 presidential race. Which leads us back to the world of pragmatism. Which candidate is liklier to encourage greater voter turnout and representation if elected? Probably not the guy who represents the party that is removing scores of names from voters rolls. Probably not the guy who opposes mail in ballots. Of the two options, which candidate would benefit more from voter suppression? Probably the guy who won the election for just the fifth time in our countries history while simultaneously losing the popular vote in 2016. Probably the guy who called Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to pressure them to “find 11,780 votes” and overturn the state’s election results from the 2020 presidential election. Of the two candidates in the 2024 presidential race, only one of them stands to benefit by more votes being cast and counted in subsequent elections. Therefore Harris is once again, the likeliest hope for improvement.

If you wish to find out, I recommend voting for the candidate that is most interested in preserving the democratic process, rather than the one who idolizes dictators, doesn’t support the peaceful transfer of power, and who’s party is held together by gerrymandering. Furthermore , if you wish to improve our democracy I recommend the ticket discussing ranked choice voting, and who are interested in eliminating the electoral college.

The fact that one is the worst does in fact mean that the other one is better by definition. We aren’t voting to fix western civilization in one fell swoop, we’re voting for the 2024 united states president. The pragmatic choice is the best available candidate, which is probably the one who doesn’t discuss shooting people on 5th avenue, or grabbing women by their genetials, or mock reporters with disabilities, or make reference to “shit hole countries”, or salute the dictator of North Korea, or get convicted of 34 felonies, or say that Israel should just “finish the job”, or who isn’t 78 years old. Call me crazy.

Here’s a thought experiment. Between the two likeliest candidates, who would you rather assemble some ikea furniture with, Trump or Harris? Who would you rather go on a road trip with? Who would you rather be stranded at sea with? You can keep escalating these scenarios until the stakes get higher and higher. At some point it should dawn on you that Trump cannot fend for himself. He is unpleasant to work with. And that he is untrustworthy as a teammate. On a fundamental level he is the worst person of the two. Handing him the keys to the country is suicidal.

Wait until you hear about the prison industrial complex.

Maximum. It would be like book burning, but with people.

You’re right, a startling number of political comedians seem to betray progressive ideologies and become mysteriously conservative. Must be a coincidence.

Believe what you want. But while you’re watching six TV shows, conservatives are positioning themselves for an actual coup.

If those people cultivate a posture of victimhood as a tool for propoganda, then yes, pointing and laughing at them justifies their outrage and is a help to them.

I will quote from a comment I made a while back on a different thread:

[The problem with the conservative base is] self esteem. If you feel powerless, or worthless, or rudderless, any group that makes you feel powerful, valuable, and effective is going to be very appealing. Conservatives (read: fascists) prey on this. They make it seem like joining them is brave, and important. And since their followers lack identity and purpose, their self worth becomes entangled with [in group], be it closeted fascism such as the American GOP, or flaming fascism such as Q/proud boys/whatever. And since their identity and value depends on the perpetuation and proliferation of their in-group, they willingly accept lies and falsehood. And attacks on their in-group become attacks on them. Pretty easy to gaslight someone who’s encouraging it.

Then when they wear their symbols of hate, or make shocking claims, or in anyway troll and grief society, up to and including dismantling democracy, they get a reaction. They’ve exerted their will on the world around them, and as such they feel powerful. The insidious bit is, even if the good guys win, with all their high falutin factual arguments and social programs, it just makes these sad people angier and feel worthless again. So they go right back to their pimps for some more sweet lies and marching orders.

The conservatives have weaponized fact checking. Every time we slam dunk on them, they just get angrier and burrow deeper into denial.

It may feel good to laugh at them, lord knows they deserve it, but it is not effective in combating them. First and foremost it is most successful as entertainment, and entertainment is only as successful as it is profitable. And this ecosystem is dependent on Trump being relevant. He is a cash cow, a hideous, demonic cow, but the left and right alike are at his greasy teats just the same.

I’ll even go one further and say that the catharsis we feel from watching a comedian humilate Trump releases pressure in the audience that might otherwise build into an actual revolution. If we can’t tune in to our favorite funny man and get some appeasement about the sickening cognitive dissonance we suffer through day after day, we may be forced to direct that energy outward and actually get into the streets. In short, humor may be pacifying an otherwise powerful people.