No that's part of the post. The tumblr user probably shared the tweet with the text copied under the image to make it more accessible to people that use screen readers.
Stopped at a light at a freeway junction. Guy in front of me stops but gets impatient and goes just before it turns green.
We get stopped by the next light at the same junction. I am now next to the guy, both of us waiting to turn left to then merge onto the freeway across a fairly large intersection that accommodates all N-S normal traffic, traffic entering the E-W freeway from the N-S traffic, and traffic exiting the E-W freeway to join the N-S traffic.
He stops for only a few moments before deciding to go anyways (I think another direction had come to a stop and he assumed we'd be next), and as he goes through the intersection, the traffic exiting the freeway to go south gets the green light, and in slow motion with plenty of time to stop (cause they were just getting moving) the two front-runners both t-bone (f-bone?) the guy.
It was bizarre and completely avoidable on all fronts. Like a slow motion train wreck. Benefit of the doubt though, the exiting traffic probably just didn't see him coming until he was right in front of them. I'm just glad that, whatever accident that guy was gonna get into that night, it happened before we got onto the freeway together.
Wow I did not interpret the term "liberal" at all in the same way that you have. Liberalism as an ideology is centrist at best, right of center at worst if you consider the overton window in developed nations other than the US.
Oh yeah, we're getting all the classics now. "all criticism of Democrats is Russian propaganda, war is peace, and Democrats can't be blamed for actively funding genocide and letting the leader of a foreign nation very publicly walk all over them in an election year" and you still think you came up with all of that yourself. How quaint.
Lol there it is, off comes the mask. Dishonestly suggesting that criticizing Israel's actions is antisemitism just because the democrats made a big show about facilitating negotiations and writing strongly worded letters and sending care packages while Netanyahu openly defies and sabotages the negotiations and continues bombing innocent civilians without recourse.
You can lead a horse to fresh water but you can't make them drink. This conversation is over. You don't give a fuck about Palestine.
Read my full reply and I promise it will make sense.
Policy/actions and talking points are two different things. The democrat's walk does not match their talk. You're falling for talking points and feel-good finger wagging while the policy and action is effectively the same.
Netanyahu is already running the show, we're already helping him carry this out. It doesn't make a difference if the guy signing the checks has an (R) or (D) next to their name and feigns pride or concern in doing so, if either way there are zero consequences for escalating the situation to a full multi-front war.
Democrats are at least attempting to work towards peace and provide humanitarian aid.
That's what they say and what they'd like us to think but that's not what Biden's policy reflects, nor Kamala's language and conduct in her campaign.
A Palestinian-American voice, a rather reasonable and balanced one, wasn't even allowed to speak at the DNC. Plenty of time for the families of hostages and a pandering cop from Genesee County, Michigan, though.
We are long past "self defense" and deep into genocide territory, yet Kamala keeps droning on about Israel's "right to defend themselves" even as Israel sabotages peace talks and opens a new front in Lebanon. When does self defense end and genocide begin if not at any point before now? Why is it unprovoked terrorism when the brown people do it but defensive war when the west does it? When are they going to stop "urging" and start threatening aid?
This is a clear bias and they've given us absolutely no sign that their pit of generosity towards Israel has any bottom to it, yet because the republicans are more open about their hatred you've given a pass to policy that will end in the exact same outcome. Total destruction of Palestine and a continuing violent apartheid with zero consequences for Israel.
There are things that are popular to the majority of this country that will motivate people to turn out to vote other than keeping Trump out of office, and those things definitely aren't being tough on immigration or funding Israel's war on the middle east.
Even if that negated anything that I said, you guys sure seem to think they're relevant when they vote third party or become disillusioned and don't vote at all. So they're only relevant when they're not doing what you want? Cause that seems to me like ignoring voters until it bites you in the ass.
There's clearly enough progressives, or voters who find Democrats' current platform objectionable, that you understand you can't win without them. The Democrats could offer them something material to vote for, and/or they can pressure them to vote against their better senses on threats that things will get worse if they lose. They are going exclusively with the latter.
For some reason you keep getting stuck on the semantics of single words that I've used. Missing the forest, so to say. Ignore the word progressive (which is not the same word as leftist but whatever). There are things that are popular to the majority of this country that will motivate people to turn out to vote other than keeping Trump out of office, and those things definitely aren't being tough on immigration or funding Israel's war on the middle east.
My point is that the Democrats seem to think they are winnable, or else they wouldn't be so afraid even just to stay the course on progressive policy, much less push it forward. We both agree that it's stupid, I'm saying it's not a winning strategy. Ignore the loyal soldiers part, that was hyperbole, they're still experiencing diminishing returns from courting the conservative vote.
They're running out of winnable votes in the middle, yet they seem to prefer to scrape the bottom of that barrel at all costs, including bleeding votes from the progressive side, which is what is happening when a third party spoils the vote. The democratic party knows this, they have billions of dollars to figure things like this out, and they know how to spin it as not to cast doubt on their own institutions.
People who point fingers at progressive voters (who they otherwise agree with) when a candidate loses, rather than demand for that candidate to win back those compatible but alienated voters, seem to think that the candidates are just innocent victims of circumstance. This is false. They are active players in a game of bets and wagers, running billion dollar campaigns with strategists and focus groups. They know what they need to do to get the winning number of votes, if they really want to.
Every time they ignore what's popular to voters or even tell a group of voters to pipe down, not even acting like they are hearing them out, is a wager that they can win without representing that view. The more voters that toe the party line and guilt each other into doing so, the more they can tell us to pipe down and choose not to represent us. At the most you could say that they have something to lose by inching left, but this is difficult to argue (other than a monetary incentive of course) because of how motivated non-republican voters are just to keep Trump out this cycle. They have plenty of room to motivate the wide open margins on the left
I don't know, you tell me why democrats are cedeing ground to the republicans on immigration, climate, and foreign policy instead of making the smallest effort to defend very popular progressive stances.
Edit: Also, yes. That is why they are imaginary. If they're voting for Trump in 2024 and can't be simply bought via campaign advertising then they aren't going to be convinced and they are not marginal voters. But man would democrats like to have that same kind of loyalty.
No, I'd say they're pretty loyal to republicans (else you'd be correct, Democrats wouldn't be courting them with republican policy) and they don't question the status quo or capitalism, which gives Democrats plenty of room to maintain loyalty to their donors.
I mean those perfectly loyal clown fearing pineapple pizza hating plastic people are clearly here in the comments with us. They would have voted for a dementia addled corporate goon if he hadn't literally gone silent for 30 seconds during a debate.
Right, and every one of those "vote blue no matter who" folks already voted for Biden in the last election and barely eeked out an electoral college win. It's a dice roll if they can do it again. If democrats want to widen that margin then all they have to do is offer literally anything at all to progressive voters.
Agree with everything you're saying. The white moderate (re:MLK) is willing to throw anyone under the bus to save their own asses. They will not stand up for what's right if it comes at the risk of losing their seat, so all you have to do is threaten that seat and they will all collectively sit nice and pretty.
Exactly what I've been saying. Democrats are clearly making a choice to die on and sacrifice our democracy to the hill of imagined centrist voters that make perfect, unquestioning and loyal followers for their party. If they lose for it then they alone are responsible for their loss and they should be the ones we direct our anger at for leaving voters on the table in what they themselves call a close and existentially important race.
If they would rather lose elections than court progressive voters, if they would like to win without us as they so clearly do; because we are less convenient to their bottom line than the aforementioned loyal centrist; then that should be laid bare for the world to see. We shouldn't let them pass their strategic failures off on voters for having morals and sticking to them.
Cul-de-sac literally translates to "ass of bag" in french.