• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

What did Democrats do wrong?

What did Democrats do wrong?

  • Didn't fight inflation enough.

    Votes: 12 15.2%
  • Didn't fight illegal immigration enough.

    Votes: 22 27.8%
  • Too much focus on abortion.

    Votes: 2 2.5%
  • Too much transgender stuff.

    Votes: 28 35.4%
  • America not ready for Progressive women leader.

    Votes: 26 32.9%
  • Should have kept Joe.

    Votes: 3 3.8%
  • Not enough focus on new jobs.

    Votes: 2 2.5%
  • Nothing, Trump cheated & played dirty!

    Votes: 14 17.7%
  • Didn't stop Gaza War.

    Votes: 8 10.1%
  • I can be Agent M.

    Votes: 6 7.6%

  • Total voters
    79
As Harris was not suitable for the various middle ground non MAGA folks, maybe run a Democrat with a military career prior to politics? Like...a guy. Walz was not quite it. Somene more suitable for the borderline authoritarians. Those people are big on appearances. Not so much politics.
The jokers with Zelinskyy today were embarrassing. To America. Not just democrats.
 
Last edited:
What was it about young voters voting for old fart Biden but not Harris? Toxic males and Tesla lovers all became of voting age after 2020?
Or if not Musk fans, they voted according to TikTok and social media clips?
Americans under the age of 45 voted for Harris by a 2-point margin (49 percent Harris – 47 percent Trump), a 17 point swing from 2020 when Biden won these voters by 19 points (58 percent Biden – 39 percent Trump). Men under the age of 45 voted for Donald Trump in the 2024 election by an 8-point margin (44 percent Harris – 52 percent Trump), a 16-point shift from 2020, where the group voted for Biden by an 8-point margin. Women under 45 also shifted 5 points, voting for Harris by a margin of 10-points (52 percent Harris – 42 percent Trump), where they voted for Biden by a 15-point margin.

Americans under the age of 30 voted for Harris by 4 points (50 percent Harris – 46 percent Trump), though young men and women diverged dramatically, with men under 30 voting for Trump by 16 points (41 percent Harris – 57 percent Trump), and women under 30 voting for Harris by 24 points (59 percent Harris – 35 percent Trump).
 
Last edited:
My point is they obviously aren't concerned about Trump. Him being back in office isn't making them change their behavior.
And? Him being in office isn't what got them to stop last time. Negotiations are. The kind that involved not insulting them during the process.
 
And? Him being in office isn't what got them to stop last time. Negotiations are. The kind that involved not insulting them during the process.

They didn't get him to stop. They got him to pause for a pretty short time, all things considered. So if Trump kissed his ass and saluted his generals all for a few years break of firing missiles is somehow viewed as prime negotiation tactics then we've got the bar set pretty ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ low.
 
They didn't get him to stop. They got him to pause for a pretty short time, all things considered. So if Trump kissed his ass and saluted his generals all for a few years break of firing missiles is somehow viewed as prime negotiation tactics then we've got the bar set pretty ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ low.
You seem to have forgotten that they did stop all nuclear tests, and haven't resumed. And what a steep, steep price we paid for that. :rolleyes:
 
after successful tests. And they didn't stop with their ICBM program. I wonder what you put on the top of an ICBM.
 
I believe you to be exactly what you say you are, a republican that does not like Trump.
I'm not a republican. Up until about the last ten years, I've been a consistently moderate liberal, and I've always registered as independent. Most of my social views are liberal, most of my fiscal views are conservative. Some of my views, especially on education, are downright socialist.

ETA: Within the last ten years, somehow I've found myself shoved onto the moderate conservative side of the line... but not because I changed my view of anything at all. It's because the left side of this line has run off into the stratosphere and dragged the middle with them. I stood still.
 
Last edited:
Honestly, it's just the cynic in me that draws a hard line between the schmoozer and the sincere. I'm highly alert to manipulation, and assume the worst intentions. It's experience based. When someone asks about something I know they have zero interest in (but know I do), I recognize the butter-up. And we all know why you butter something up, and it ain't because you are concerned with how it's life is going. ;)

I hear what you're saying... but I would bet you're wrong about your own assumptions if you think about it a bit deeper. IIRC, you're married, right? Does your spouse have any interests that you find boring? Do you ever ask them about those interests - not because you're interested, but because you know they're interested, and you care about them? If you have kids... do you ever try to get them engaged in talking about their interests and hobbies, even if you aren't into them at all?

Do you have any idea how much I now know about RC Cars? I don't care about RC cars and trucks at all... but it's my spouse's hobby and they get excited about it - and they appreciate my interest even though they know I'm not going to pick it up as a hobby of my own.

That's the point - it's not insincere to show an interest in things that other people care about, even if you don't care about them. You can be sincere when you interact, because you're not claiming to be into the thing yourself, you're just acknowledging something that's important to them.
 
Last edited:
after successful tests.
Do you know why we kept testing nuclear weapons for decades? It wasn't just new designs. How nuclear weapons age is a nontrivial problem. You know how we deal with it now that we don't do live tests? Do you think the Norks can do that? The fact that they aren't still testing isn't a small thing. That doesn't mean they are disarmed, sure, but it's a long ways from nothing. It was certainly worth the price of being polite to Kim.
 
Do you know why we kept testing nuclear weapons for decades? It wasn't just new designs. How nuclear weapons age is a nontrivial problem. You know how we deal with it now that we don't do live tests? Do you think the Norks can do that? The fact that they aren't still testing isn't a small thing. That doesn't mean they are disarmed, sure, but it's a long ways from nothing. It was certainly worth the price of being polite to Kim.
You're arguing with a cluster of people who think that being uncivil, disrespectful, and rude is a noble end in and of itself as long as they're being mean to "those people". They've fully embraced intolerance as a worthy goal.
 
You're arguing with a cluster of people who think that being uncivil, disrespectful, and rude is a noble end in and of itself as long as they're being mean to "those people". They've fully embraced intolerance as a worthy goal.

Or, a cluster of people who don't want to legitimize a dictator on a national stage, while watching our POTUS salute NKs military generals.

But yeah, you're right-wing interpretation is cool too.
 
I hear what you're saying... but I would bet you're wrong about your own assumptions if you think about it a bit deeper. IIRC, you're married, right? Does your spouse have any interests that you find boring? Do you ever ask them about those interests - not because you're interested, but because you know they're interested, and you care about them? If you have kids... do you ever try to get them engaged in talking about their interests and hobbies, even if you aren't into them at all?

Do you have any idea how much I now know about RC Cars? I don't care about RC cars and trucks at all... but it's my spouse's hobby and they get excited about it - and they appreciate my interest even though they know I'm not going to pick it up as a hobby of my own.

That's the point - it's not insincere to show an interest in things that other people care about, even if you don't care about them. You can be sincere when you interact, because you're not claiming to be into the thing yourself, you're just acknowledging something that's important to them.
You recall correctly, married with whelps. And I do ask them about their interests for a few reasons: I want to know what's going on in their lives and interests, and I love to see them get excited about what they are passionate about, and mostly because I love them all with my entire being, so what is important to them is important to me, passively or actively.

As an aside, none of them give a flying ◊◊◊◊ about any of my interests that don't overlap theirs. I don't entirely blame them, but that's another story.

The difference with the schmoozer is motivation. The schmoozer is working an alliance, not sharing in my life. Because I am fascinated with psychological manipulation (in all its forms and intensities), that's a hard line distinction.
 
I'm not a republican. Up until about the last ten years, I've been a consistently moderate liberal, and I've always registered as independent. Most of my social views are liberal, most of my fiscal views are conservative. Some of my views, especially on education, are downright socialist.

ETA: Within the last ten years, somehow I've found myself shoved onto the moderate conservative side of the line... but not because I changed my view of anything at all. It's because the left side of this line has run off into the stratosphere and dragged the middle with them. I stood still.
My mistake, then. I thought I remembered you saying you were what we would call a compassionate conservative.
 
Or, a cluster of people who don't want to legitimize a dictator on a national stage
Again, this is the only way you can realistically carry out negotiations with an adversary of anything other than a surrender (which isn't happening with either the Norks or the Russians), and even then it's not actually productive to be rude. If you don't want to do negotiations of any other sort, then you don't have to be polite.

So start being honest. Just say that you don't want to negotiate with the Russians. Just say that you want the war to keep dragging on for several more years at a minimum. Because really, if you don't want to negotiate with the Russians, then the fundamental problem with Trump's approach isn't that he's being polite to Putin, it's that he's trying to negotiate with him at all.
 
Last edited:
You know, this whole Zelinsky White House mess reminds me about the story of Van Halen and the brown M&M's. In their tour contracts with venues they would specify that there had to be a bowl of M&M's in their room with all the brown M&M's removed. Early reporting on this portrayed the move as if it was the group just being overly demanding divas. In point of fact, it was a deliberate strategy they used to test whether the venues were really paying attention to the contract details. If the bowl wasn't there, or if the brown M&M's weren't removed, they knew to expect other problems that could interfere with their technically very demanding shows. The band didn't care about the M&M's themselves, they cared about the signal it sent about stuff that really was critical.

Zelensky failed the M&M test. It's not that what he said in the White House was all that bad in and of itself. But the fact that he couldn't just be polite, be thankful, not try to force Trump's hand when all of that would have been so easy, and wouldn't even require any concessions on his part... that's a sign that he's not ready to do what it takes to make negotiations successful. Either Zelensky is taking bad advice, or he doesn't understand the situation himself, and neither of those possibilities is a good sign. Failing at the easy stuff now suggests that he's going to fail at the hard stuff later, and that's why a smackdown was appropriate.
 
Last edited:
You know, this whole Zelinsky White House mess reminds me about the story of Van Halen and the brown M&M's. In their tour contracts with venues they would specify that there had to be a bowl of M&M's in their room with all the brown M&M's removed. Early reporting on this portrayed the move as if it was the group just being overly demanding divas. In point of fact, it was a deliberate strategy they used to test whether the venues were really paying attention to the contract details. If the bowl wasn't there, or if the brown M&M's weren't removed, they knew to expect other problems that could interfere with their technically very demanding shows. The band didn't care about the M&M's themselves, they cared about the signal it sent about stuff that really was critical.

Zelensky failed the M&M test. It's not that what he said in the White House was all that bad in and of itself. But the fact that he couldn't just be polite, be thankful, not try to force Trump's hand when all of that would have been so easy, and wouldn't even require any concessions on his part... that's a sign that he's not ready to do what it takes to make negotiations successful. Either Zelensky is taking bad advice, or he doesn't understand the situation himself, and neither of those possibilities is a good sign. Failing at the easy stuff now suggests that he's going to fail at the hard stuff later, and that's why a smackdown was appropriate.
No, dude. Trump is being an absolute dickhead.
 
You know, this whole Zelinsky White House mess reminds me about the story of Van Halen and the brown M&M's. In their tour contracts with venues they would specify that there had to be a bowl of M&M's in their room with all the brown M&M's removed. Early reporting on this portrayed the move as if it was the group just being overly demanding divas. In point of fact, it was a deliberate strategy they used to test whether the venues were really paying attention to the contract details. If the bowl wasn't there, or if the brown M&M's weren't removed, they knew to expect other problems that could interfere with their technically very demanding shows. The band didn't care about the M&M's themselves, they cared about the signal it sent about stuff that really was critical.

Zelensky failed the M&M test. It's not that what he said in the White House was all that bad in and of itself. But the fact that he couldn't just be polite, be thankful, not try to force Trump's hand when all of that would have been so easy, and wouldn't even require any concessions on his part... that's a sign that he's not ready to do what it takes to make negotiations successful. Either Zelensky is taking bad advice, or he doesn't understand the situation himself, and neither of those possibilities is a good sign. Failing at the easy stuff now suggests that he's going to fail at the hard stuff later, and that's why a smackdown was appropriate.
...Wow... You are really down the rabbit hole....

It was pretty clear to me that Trump wants to do business with Russia, and he went into this meeting looking for an excuse to blame Zelinsky for the war so he can cut off support and help Russia win. I mean, refusing to even talk about the fact that Putin has broken cease fire agreements with Ukraine in the past? What is that? The fact that Ukraine does not trust Putin is the biggest stumbling block to peace, and that's not even being something that can be discussed makes it pretty clear that Trump is on Russia's side.
 
Last edited:
all Zelensky had to do was thank Trump for taking all of Ukraine's future earnings in return for absolutely nothing - how ungrateful of him not to do that.
 

Back
Top Bottom