Goodeye8

All he has is his current seat and when it comes to re-election he’s going to bomb out regardless of who he goes up against.

Just because his name will be on the ballot doesn’t mean he has a chance to win. A challenge implies a failure state. There is no challenging Fetterman because there’s no failure state to the challenge because Fetterman fails all on his own.

You want to explain what exactly can’t I think of?

I’m not disagreeing with you, I’m disagreeing with the framing in the article that implies Fetterman is somehow in the race (how else are you going challenge him?) when in reality he has no shot at running again.

What is this framing? Am I out of touch? There’s not challenge here, Fetterman is already done. His position was weakened the moment he decided to betray his constituents. Even his own staff hate him. All he has is his current seat and when it comes to re-election he’s going to bomb out regardless of who he goes up against. I think it’s great that Ahmed Moor is going to run but his fight isn’t going to be with Fetterman. There’s a small chance the establishment dems realize they need to work with the socialists to get anything done but I doubt that’ll happen so the fight will be with whomever the establishment puts in to replace Fetterman.

What do you mean? That I can’t set up something like tailscale on iPhone? Or can I set it up as long as it’s in the same country and I can’t set up a makeshift VPN service by routing my traffic through a VPS in a different country?

Hold on, this whole operation was your idea.

Why are democrats talking about how bad their candidate is? If they weren’t doing that this article wouldn’t exist and we wouldn’t be talking about it.

Maybe don’t run defense for the group actively trying to sabotage the midterms.

He has something like over 20 000 hours streamed. I’m sure you’re going to run into that as well, but if that’s all you’ve ever seen… I guess you must be the worlds unluckiest viewer to always find him doing just that.

I mean you can literally open his stream right at this very moment, he’s not just sitting there “reacting” like a houseplant. He’s not even watching a video others made.

He’s been a political commentator even before he became a streamer. He probably still reacts to content on the account that political commentary largely depends on reacting to interviews, news clips, articles etc. I’m sure he probably does non-political reactions, such as the recent H3H3 implosion, but as with political commentary he adds a lot of commentary ontop the content. There was even a viral clip of casuallyexplained calling out Hasan for constantly pausing videos to add his own commentary.

The idea that he mostly stole content from others is one of the multitude of lies his haters have told over the years. He’s a far cry from the react streamers who consume content in its entirety and add only “uh-uh, yeah, right.”

He actually agrees with you, he’s just a twitch streamer who does political commentary and occasional activism when it aligns with his ideology. He would happily stay in his lane. But the democrats and republicans have turned him into a big deal and gone out of their way to slander him.

I wouldn’t be that worried about Vance, it’s hard to find a less charismatic politician. Just a few days ago there was a grieving husband asking for some comfort and assurance that his wife didn’t die in vain in the Iran war, that something will be done to prevent it from happening to anyone else. It’s a real low hanging fruit for any politician. You just offer condolences, say you’ll look into this (Vance could even collect some credibility by saying this is one of the reasons why he didn’t want the war in Iran in the first place) and then thank them for their service (the husband was also in the military).

And it’s clear Vance has been politically trained because he understood what he was supposed to do, but the way he went about it… Oh boy, it hurt me to watch it so I can’t even imagine what the husband was feeling. Vance got the gist of what he was supposed to say but what came out could be summed up as “sorry your wife died bro, but this is the first time I’m hearing there are problems in the military” coated in the most HR speech you could have. And then he spent an uncomfortable amount time going into some really weird specifics about how they’re trying to prevent this from happening again but that ended up coming across as “your wife died in vain because we didn’t think before they got struck”. And he didn’t know when to end it. His own staff had to cut him off to get him out that low-hanging fruit he jury-rigged into a political mine that he threw himself onto. You could take a literal stranger from the street and there’s a high likelihood that stranger would’ve given a better answer than Vance.

And this is why I’m not worried. Because the republican party is held together by the only strength Trump has, his charm. Now before you’re going to say Trump can’t have any charm because he’s a deplorable rapist whose cognitive capacity is in the red, look at his voters. They’re morons. Trump literally said he could say the stupidest thing and they would cheer for him. And they cheered for that. His voters don’t know what he’s doing or saying or anything. All they see is how he present himself and he presents himself in a way where his voters think he knows what he’s doing. That’s the only thing keeping the party together and that requires a certain level of presence and charm. Vance has none of that. Trumpists won’t rally behind Vance because he looks like he enjoys getting cucked by his wife, he talks like he’s a liberal consultant and he has no spine when it comes to taking some accountability. In many ways he’s the very embodiment of the democrat politician every republican voter hates.

I don’t know what kind of a political brainwashing the republican party needs to do to get the republicans to support Vance. Or maybe they’ll just hollow out Vance and use him as a sock puppet because that would actually improve his charisma.

The trickiest post of politics is dealing with the fact that people are mostly uninformed and uninterested, and grappling with the foolishness of the average citizen.

Which is why the popularity of a policy should be looked through the lens of do people actually support the idea behind the policy instead of what the policy is called. For example Medicare is viewed favorably among the republicans but when you turn around and start asking about government health coverage suddenly the support flips in the other way and republicans hate the idea. Except that’s pretty much what medicare is.

You can’t view popularity of a policy on a superficial level because on a superficial level the popularity swings whatever way depending on the very specific phrasing of the question. You have to get to the core of policy and then view the popularity of the core idea to understand the popularity of a policy. Because if the policy at its core is popular you can find support for it by cutting through the bullshit, but if the policy is unpopular no amount of cutting through the bullshit will get you support. You have to actually spin bullshit to make an unpopular policy popular and you can only do that when there’s nobody on the other side calling it out. Going back to the El-Sayed and Rogers example, the reason their debate was so one-sided is because El-Sayed was on the side of popular policies and could easily present them as they are. And Rogers couldn’t do anything because every time he tried to bullshit something he got called out.

Which doesn’t mean those policies aren’t popular. They’ve simply been propagandized to be “fairy tales”. The opposition can’t argue over the policy itself because the policy is popular so they have to argue around it. That’s where you get these arguments that something is too expensive to implement or it’s going to get exploited by “the wrong people” and such. But it doesn’t make those policies unpopular. El-sayed is a great example because he runs on progressive policies and is very popular in his state. If the policies by nature were unpopular he wouldn’t be a popular candidate. Nobody gave a shit that Mike Rogers kept saying El-Sayeds policies are too expensive because El-Sayed cuts through that bullshit to keep people focused on what the policy actually is.

And if we go back to those popular “liberal” policies at least half of them are also progressive policies and some of them I wouldn’t even consider liberal, such as “Public Infrastructure and Education”. Modern American liberalism is against state socialism and state controlled public use of anything is technically state socialism. Liberals have simply adopted parts of progressive policies because they’re so popular not adopting them would be stupid.

30% barbaric. 30% not barbaric. 40% undecided don’t see an issue with barbarism.

FTFY.

And can you name some progressive policies That are being pushed but people aren’t receptive to?

Can you give me the top 5 most popular liberal policies?

I thought integrity was publicly out the window when there was a PSA about getting $5000 if you vote a certain way.

Should ask what good does he think he has done. Let the man dig his own grave.

Harris went against a republican, Mamdani went against a democrat running as an independent. Of course a democrat vs democrat election is going split more votes than a democrat vs republican election.

The US doesn’t have a giant socialist majority, but socialist policies are really popular in the US because the US is so fucked by capitalism. The reason they need to do the “socialist” attack is because they can’t attack the policies because they’re popular policies. They can’t attack the platform so they attack the character. And in case of Abdul El-Sayed, who isn’t part of the DSA and doesn’t consider himself a socialist, they can’t even attack the character so they have to attack his associations, primarily Hasan Piker because that’s a socialist you can attack.

Don’t fall of the establishment dems shit. There’s way bigger support for social policies than whatever shit the establishment democrats want to peddle. That’s why the establishment is deliberately trying to build infighting within the party, so when they lose the midterms they could blame the socialists for the infighting and call for the party to re-unify under the current establishment so they can go back to business as usual.

If your online DRM free game store closes down do you expect to go to the publisher and say that same thing? Or do you have all your DRM free games downloaded and stored locally?