Because forgiving college debt and giving you $50k towards your first house and bringing prescription drug prices down is abandoning you? Fixing our rail system is abandoning you? Repeatedly saying they're going to tax billionaires is abandoning progressives?
It's not like we give them enough to have the power to actually get big things done. When we do give them a little, they have to bring in the vice president to break ties in the Senate.
In this regard, it's not like Republicans wield power any better. They couldn't even repeal the ACA. It's just that they get more credit. First, they get credit for every Dem initiative they stop (even if it's not real). The reverse isn't true. Second, everything the Republicans do get done tends to be negative and stings more than the positives.
I know you want to abandon billionaire money. You want Dems saying the right things to you, in a closet where nobody hears them. Because if you don't have money, you lose elections. Period. That's a big problem that needs to be solved, but it can't be solved by people who lose elections.
The Dems absolutely could have tried to appeal to the progressives more instead of moderates. Clearly, in hindsight, it'd be worth trying something different. But I doubt it would have worked. People weren't happy, and they were going to take it out on the incumbent party. And right now they'd be hearing "why didn't they appeal to moderates?"
My point is that it's more complicated than just "appeal to progressives instead of moderates". The Dems have more realities to deal with than we give them credit for.
They don't talk about voting laws during the campaign because it loses.
Contrary to popular belief, they're not idiots.
If you get all the corporations to turn against you, especially the media companies, you lose. Ask Bernie.
They're not doing everything right, certainly, but it's also not a simple problem to solve. There are some very fine lines to walk for Dems. Kamala tried to walk those lines and failed.
She offered a $50k credit towards buying your first house. Does Gen Z remember that?
Meanwhile Trump could shout "hail Hitler" tomorrow and all the corporate media (and then 50% of the voters) would make excuses for him.
We need voters to seek out primary sources. We need them to be more resistant to manipulation. The problem isn't getting the information out there; it's getting people to hear it. How many people who didn't vote for Kamala went to KamalaHarris.com? And how many of those seriously considered what she had to say?
The problem is that saying nothing is more of a winning strategy than saying something. People always want to tear you down, and more words give them more ammo. So every politician's website is filled with fluff and platitudes.
The problem is Fox News telling people what to think 24/7 in a way that they actually listen.
Honestly, The Daily Show and Colbert Report of around 2000-2015 were one of the best things this country had going for it, and we were hardly aware of it.
There's an ocean of chess games recorded in chess notation. So it'll play brilliant moves. They may not apply to this game or be legal moves, but in that other situation they were brilliant!
They're secure. Absolutely more secure than going without. I know a total of about two passwords, which are used in only two places.
The rest of my passwords look like PaB@@f%G4q77Mh#EsL%DG@
Keepass uses a file you keep on your own computer, encrypted, with two passwords. One password (a keyfile) is stored on your disk. The other you remember. With that much security, you can give someone your password database and it's unlikely they'll ever open it. If you're ultra paranoid, you use keepass.
Bitwarden is more convenient, more user friendly, and stored in the cloud. It's open source and audited. If someone breached Bitwarden, it'd be huge news.
Not having a password manager, besides being a huge pita, is more of a security risk. I bet you use the same password on different sites, maybe with a variation based on the domain name. You likely often have trouble remembering passwords, and might try several passwords if your first try fails. All this is information you could be giving away if the site is compromised.
I never forget a username or password anymore. If the site tells me I'm wrong, I know it's them and not me.
Plus Passkeys are pretty great and are starting to be supported.
I get his point, even if he didn't state it eloquently. There are photography elements here that look kind of cool. Yeah, most people will focus on memories of history and, you know, how Nazis are fucking bad. But the danger is if something like this recruits anyone. Some people fall for anything with a cool font, even if it tarnishes the font for a lot of others. If I see a swastika, I want to see it carved into a Nazi's forehead. I don't want to see a stylized swastika with cool lighting effects that might appeal to a small number of idiots.
It helps that Elon's face looks particularly stupid.
I don't know that I agree with his argument, but I can see a grain of truth in it.
My point was for people who are scared to leave Twitter. They don't have to. They can just dip their toes in while still holding their Elon-themed blanket.
I understand that often you can't just drop the platform where all the engagement is when your job is to promote something. However, you can still enable people who do want to make the switch.
It blows my mind that places like the transit systems that were on Twitter haven't migrated over to their own Mastodon server. They're not that hard to set up, and there's so little risk when you just don't accept public signups on your domain.
Because forgiving college debt and giving you $50k towards your first house and bringing prescription drug prices down is abandoning you? Fixing our rail system is abandoning you? Repeatedly saying they're going to tax billionaires is abandoning progressives?
It's not like we give them enough to have the power to actually get big things done. When we do give them a little, they have to bring in the vice president to break ties in the Senate.
In this regard, it's not like Republicans wield power any better. They couldn't even repeal the ACA. It's just that they get more credit. First, they get credit for every Dem initiative they stop (even if it's not real). The reverse isn't true. Second, everything the Republicans do get done tends to be negative and stings more than the positives.
I know you want to abandon billionaire money. You want Dems saying the right things to you, in a closet where nobody hears them. Because if you don't have money, you lose elections. Period. That's a big problem that needs to be solved, but it can't be solved by people who lose elections.
The Dems absolutely could have tried to appeal to the progressives more instead of moderates. Clearly, in hindsight, it'd be worth trying something different. But I doubt it would have worked. People weren't happy, and they were going to take it out on the incumbent party. And right now they'd be hearing "why didn't they appeal to moderates?"
My point is that it's more complicated than just "appeal to progressives instead of moderates". The Dems have more realities to deal with than we give them credit for.