'I'm right because you're a sexist and racist but don't even know you're a sexist and racist!'

Like I said, white knights tend to be patronizing and unbearable.

BTW those would be classified as biases, not principles.

You're accusing me of not having principles because I... did what Bernie asked?
#147 | Posted by snoofy

IMO, yes. If you're so flimsy in your opinions you drop them at the behest of an individual, you don't really hold them too dearly.

What makes me think that?

The fact that you can't understand why Bernie supporters wouldn't abandon the positions that made them support Bernie to begin with simply because Bernie said so.

Only someone devoid of genuine values and principles would be such a political windsock and expect others to be as well.

I don't disagree.

However, other countries also went through waves of poultry flock culling to try and mitigate avian influenza. They're still doing it even now.

It's pretty well figured out.

Unless you want a different narrative to be true without any real evidence to support it...

Bets on how long or how many lines of speech it takes before the orange skidmark makes it about himself?

It's not shocking that misogynists wouldn't listen to the man who they loved everything about, except when he said "Vote For The Woman."
It's not shocking at all.
You seem to have trouble accepting it, though.

#137 | Posted by snoofy

It's almost as if you don't know what it's like to have actual, genuinely held principles and values, Mr. White Knight.

Who am I white knighting for, when I say misogyny is a reason that both Hillary and Kamala lost?

#138 | Posted by snoofy

Women who have succeeded well beyond either of us without the need for you to assign her a victim status.

That 7 million people didn't have the gumption to vote against a POS like Trump when they did it 4 years earlier.

Gullibility and apathy of the American electorate can't be ignored. Look how much damage it took over the last year for people to finally realize what a stupid decision that was.

I don't disagree with the points about Harris and her unfavorability.
And Snoofy isn't wrong about how much misogyny is baked into perceptions.

#127 | Posted by eberly

Snoofy isn't wrong that there is certainly voters out there for whom misogyny would affect/dictate their vote.

But it wasn't 7 million, and most of those folks were probably already voting Trump anyway. There is ample evidence of her simply being a poor candidate to begin with.

Now do Clinton vs Trump.
Where's the Bernie Bros go?

#119 | Posted by snoofy

It's shocking to you that people attracted to Bernie's boat rocker, semi-outsider status (let's be real, a guy who has spent decades in the federal government isn't really an outsider...) wouldn't vote for a candidate who was the epitome of status quo insider?

I don't get it.
Where's the "stooping" part?

#101 | Posted by snoofy

"Men" who white knight are stooping.

What's funny, is that most women I know who I am close enough to to have this type of discussion distrust the white knights as much as the overt misogynists because they tend to be patronizing and offensive but in a back handed manner.

Your clinging to an objectively wrong narrative to explain an easily predicted outcome is because you value first and foremost your status as an "ally."

Which means you're a white knight.

If you wrote the story of Harris from 2020 to 2024, anonymized it and stripped it of any indicators of sex or race, it wouldn't be much of a head scratcher to guess why that candidate didn't win.

So you're saying there's no room for misogyny at all, in why Kamala Harris wasn't a successful candidate?
You aren't that stupid. But you might be that proud.

#97 | Posted by snoofy

Nope. Never said that at all.

Nothing is ever zero. Ever.

But it's not why she lost.

Women aren't good candidates. Period. It's okay to admit that too.

#86 | Posted by snoofy

Your words, not mine.

Which is weird given women win elections all the time in the US for HoR, Senate, governor, state level offices...

His administration was a trainwreck literally and figuratively. Talk about being delusional.

#81 | Posted by BellRinge

You are easily one of the most lacking in critical thinking and, come to think of it, thinking skills in general on this entire site.

The only way this conclusion is reached is you simply believe without question poorly supported bulls*&^ narratives you don't understand.

A few independents went to Trump and the rest stayed home. That's the only thing I can come up with, but I doubt Doc will do anything but dance around the issue.

#74 | Posted by lfthndthrds

Wow. Lfthndturd actually had a thought, and it didn't kill him.

Bravo.

Covid. Trump handled it poorly and I believe it's the primary reason he lost to Biden.

#71 | Posted by BellRinger

As usual, you couldn't be more wrong if you tried.

I'll never understand that one.

#67 | Posted by eberly

What's not to understand?

She ran in 2020. Didn't even make it to the Iowa caucus. Was selected as VP anyway and did nothing to set herself above others in the administration (I think Buttigieg was a good example of the type of presence she needed to have).

Instead, the DNC hoped to fulfill their dream of a woman POTUS based on "not Trump" and "she's the VP," as if in the past it was the mere occupancy of the office that mattered and not the achievements that put previous VPOTUS in that office.

The nail in the coffin was the mismanagement of their own base. For examples of that, see any Gaza thread here.

Because of right wing propaganda that people listened to and a botched hand off to her.

#52 | Posted by GalaxiePete

Nope.

It was a bad plan implemented in 2020 when she was named (foolishly) to be VP that the DNC was apparently pot committed to.

There wasn't anything that was going to rescue that campaign. Sorry.

In other words, you only call it "identity politics" when the identity isn't White, Male, Christian.
That's your identity politics, JPW.

#88 | Posted by snoofy

Hardly, you pathetic ball-less wonder.

It's identity politics when some whipped cuck like you tries to paint over an obvious loss with strident cries of ics, isms and ists while completely ignoring the obvious reality staring you in the face.

What makes progressive "men" so sad and willing to stoop this low?

Racism and misogyny - coupled with a 120 day runway to run her campaign. It's all there in front of you. Lame duck Donnie has lost the narrative, and only the die hard cultists are on board the demented pedo train. Sucks to be you.

#49 | Posted by chuffy

Except you're ignoring the fact that she was a wildly UNSUCCESSFUL candidate in the Dem primary who never broke a few percentage points of support and was the first to drop out.

In an open playing field, she wasn't remotely close to a preferred candidate.

It was beyond foolish to believe she would perform much better after being selected as the candidate, especially after a pretty unremarkable four years as VP.

Any woman is a terrible candidate.
America isn't ready to elect a woman -- end of story.
It was clueless of the Democrats to think Americans aren't even more misogynistic than they are racist.

#41 | Posted by snoofy

I see we're never going to learn the lesson that all identity politics all the time is a losing strategy...

Harris wasn't a good candidate. Period. It's ok to admit that.