Ankle-biting Democrats

Halifax2TheMax · January 24

Lerxst1992 said:

Tim Simmons said:

I guess it’ll be worth it to fork over the $35 in November when the dems lose the senate…again. Even in a mini blue wave that’s shaping up. Too uncompetitive in too many states. The majority of those states (over 50%) will never vote D.

Or man save me the dough, we should develop some kind of bat signal.

*The following opinion is mine and mine alone and does not represent the views of my family, friends, government and/or my past, present or future employer. US Department of State: 1-888-407-4747.

The senate comes in 2028. Under water by 69%. To Canada. Let that sink in.

And that’s no knock against Oh Canada.

Tim Simmons · January 24

Lerxst1992 said:

Tim Simmons said:

I guess it’ll be worth it to fork over the $35 in November when the dems lose the senate…again. Even in a mini blue wave that’s shaping up. Too uncompetitive in too many states. The majority of those states (over 50%) will never vote D.

I’ve never bought that you were you MAGA. You hand wring like a liberal.

Lerxst1992 · January 24

Tim Simmons said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Tim Simmons said:

I guess it’ll be worth it to fork over the $35 in November when the dems lose the senate…again. Even in a mini blue wave that’s shaping up. Too uncompetitive in too many states. The majority of those states (over 50%) will never vote D.

I’ve never bought that you were you MAGA. You hand wring like a liberal.

Don’t believe said u did. Enjoy the tour. May they play a dozen shows at United.

gimmesometruth27 · January 26

Lerxst1992 said:

Tim Simmons said:

I guess it’ll be worth it to fork over the $35 in November when the dems lose the senate…again. Even in a mini blue wave that’s shaping up. Too uncompetitive in too many states. The majority of those states (over 50%) will never vote D.

Or man save me the dough, we should develop some kind of bat signal.

you are going to renew.

Gern Blansten · January 26

Lerxst1992 said:

Tim Simmons said:

I guess it’ll be worth it to fork over the $35 in November when the dems lose the senate…again. Even in a mini blue wave that’s shaping up. Too uncompetitive in too many states. The majority of those states (over 50%) will never vote D.

Or man save me the dough, we should develop some kind of bat signal.

lose? how does one lose something that they don't currently control?

Halifax2TheMax · January 26

Gern Blansten said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Tim Simmons said:

I guess it’ll be worth it to fork over the $35 in November when the dems lose the senate…again. Even in a mini blue wave that’s shaping up. Too uncompetitive in too many states. The majority of those states (over 50%) will never vote D.

Or man save me the dough, we should develop some kind of bat signal.

lose? how does one lose something that they don't currently control?

*The following opinion is mine and mine alone and does not represent the views of my family, friends, government and/or my past, present or future employer. US Department of State: 1-888-407-4747.

AI.

gimmesometruth27 · January 26

speaking of ankle biting democrats,

where the fuck is dem leadership and why are they not on the ground in minnesota with the people protesting?

every single politically charged movement i can think of has had the opposing party leadership there on the ground with the protesters. where is jeffires and schumer? why are they not there? we know they are empty suits, but for god's sake show up and be seen and make the people feel like they are seen and heard.

if this was a dem president doing this in a ruby red city, you know all the gop leadership would be there. where are the spineless dems??

HughFreakingDillon · January 26

afraid of getting assassinated in the street maybe?

gimmesometruth27 · January 26

HughFreakingDillon said:

afraid of getting assassinated in the street maybe?

schumer could write a strongly worded letter that the maga troglodytes can't read because it has 3 syllable words, and jeffries is working on his next rap to throw out next time he is on msnbc.

Lerxst1992 · January 26

Gern Blansten said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Tim Simmons said:

I guess it’ll be worth it to fork over the $35 in November when the dems lose the senate…again. Even in a mini blue wave that’s shaping up. Too uncompetitive in too many states. The majority of those states (over 50%) will never vote D.

Or man save me the dough, we should develop some kind of bat signal.

lose? how does one lose something that they don't currently control?

Win an election for the senate, or lose one.

OnWis97 · January 27

The Dems not seeming to understand the gravity of the moment?

Didn't see that coming.

gimmesometruth27 · January 27

OnWis97 said:

The Dems not seeming to understand the gravity of the moment?

Didn't see that coming.

yeah 7 of them voted to fund ice. just off the chains lunacy or stupidity here in this moment.

HughFreakingDillon · January 28

gimmesometruth27 said:

OnWis97 said:

The Dems not seeming to understand the gravity of the moment?

Didn't see that coming.

yeah 7 of them voted to fund ice. just off the chains lunacy or stupidity here in this moment.

what else was in that likely-bloviated bill that they were probably voting on?

gimmesometruth27 · January 28

HughFreakingDillon said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

OnWis97 said:

The Dems not seeming to understand the gravity of the moment?

Didn't see that coming.

yeah 7 of them voted to fund ice. just off the chains lunacy or stupidity here in this moment.

what else was in that likely-bloviated bill that they were probably voting on?

you assume they are being strategic.

one apologized saying they did not realize that the bill was a referendum on ice.

seriously, if they cannot read the room, they deserve to be primaried.

you do not fund a terrorist organization that is killing american citizens in the streets. full stop.

HughFreakingDillon · January 28

gimmesometruth27 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

OnWis97 said:

The Dems not seeming to understand the gravity of the moment?

Didn't see that coming.

yeah 7 of them voted to fund ice. just off the chains lunacy or stupidity here in this moment.

what else was in that likely-bloviated bill that they were probably voting on?

you assume they are being strategic.

one apologized saying they did not realize that the bill was a referendum on ice.

seriously, if they cannot read the room, they deserve to be primaried.

you do not fund a terrorist organization that is killing american citizens in the streets. full stop.

I'm just asking as I've mentioned this before; these bills are sometimes hundreds of pages long, some of these congresspeople don't have the time to read everything in them, or they have something in them that is important to them/their constituents, and if they vote no on one, it's a vote no on everything in the bill. that's the idiotic thing about these bills. barely anything passes because there's always SOMETHING someone is going to have a problem with. And if they are pressured to vote for a bill because of one major component, a lot of other minor but also shitty components could get passed.

it must be incredibly frustrating in US congress.

brianlux · January 28

I think it could be argued that the whole stinkin' federal government is a good reason to consider the merits of Proudhonian Anarchism. The problem is I very much doubt even one percent of American have ever even heard of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon let alone have a clue about the man's philosophy. Too bad, but considering how often in history governments have failed, it actually makes a lot of sense.

I can't easily be explained in a nutshell, but if you're curious, maybe read some of this:

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/larry-gambone-proudhon-and-anarchism

Of course, the chances of the happening are slim to none, so the next best thing is holding our lawmakers accountable.

HughFreakingDillon · January 28

I will just never understand why individual items can't be voted on. That's how it's done in every voting entity I've ever belonged to.

HughFreakingDillon · January 28

We’ve even been dealing with this brainwashing on this board affecting so-called democrats/moderates who think everything democrat is “radical”. Hint: it isn’t. You’ve been fooled by fear.

From a non-pearl jam mike mcready

All things being equal, MAGA voters would never support a candidate accused of what Donald Trump is accused of.

Imagine 26 years ago if George W. Bush had been credibly accused of trying to overturn an election.

Or of being part of Jeffrey Epstein’s inner circle.

He’d be gone.

Even if that meant Al Gore became president.

That’s how politics used to work.

So why doesn’t that happen now?

Because something fundamental has changed—not about Trump, but about the alternative.

In the MAGA worldview, Democrats aren’t just wrong. They’re portrayed as so corrupt, so dishonest, and so dangerous that even overwhelming misconduct on their own side becomes tolerable by comparison.

At that point, moral judgment collapses into a single rule:

Whatever keeps the other side out of power is justified.

That’s why Trump’s behavior matters less than the environment around him.

The real engine of this moment isn’t Trump.

It’s the successful demonization of the left.

That’s why right-wing media has to ignore, distort, discredit, or reframe what Jack Smith says under oath about Trump’s role in trying to overturn the election and exploiting January 6th.

Often all at once.

Because if MAGA voters saw this information cleanly—without distortion—it wouldn’t just challenge Trump.

It would threaten the story they’ve been living inside.

And once a political identity is built on that story, evidence stops functioning as evidence. It feels like an attack.

This doesn’t happen by accident.

Inside the right-wing media ecosystem, the most extreme versions of what the far left wants are amplified relentlessly—until they come to stand in for the entire Democratic Party.

Day after day, viewers are taught that voting Democrat means endorsing the outermost edge of the coalition.

Fringe ideas are treated as inevitable outcomes.

Once that framing is installed, Trump’s conduct can never be the deciding factor—because the alternative has already been defined as catastrophic.

And I’ve seen the result of this up close.

I have close MAGA friends who tell me they’re exhausted by Trump.

They won’t be sad when he’s gone.

But they’re also clear about something else: that doesn’t mean they’re voting for a Democrat.

Not because Trump’s behavior doesn’t bother them.

But because, after years inside this media environment, the alternative no longer feels like a political disagreement. It feels like a threat to the country.

Once that happens, Trump’s conduct can never be the deciding factor.

And once a belief like that is installed, admitting you were misled becomes more painful than doubling down. So the mind protects itself.

That’s where we are.

This isn’t about Trump anymore.

It’s about what happens to a democracy when one side lives inside a sealed media ecosystem—and the other side keeps assuming better arguments will fix it.

Until that asymmetry is addressed, nothing breaks the spell.

Gern Blansten · January 28

HughFreakingDillon said:

We’ve even been dealing with this brainwashing on this board affecting so-called democrats/moderates who think everything democrat is “radical”. Hint: it isn’t. You’ve been fooled by fear.

From a non-pearl jam mike mcready

All things being equal, MAGA voters would never support a candidate accused of what Donald Trump is accused of.

Imagine 26 years ago if George W. Bush had been credibly accused of trying to overturn an election.
Or of being part of Jeffrey Epstein’s inner circle.

He’d be gone.

Even if that meant Al Gore became president.

That’s how politics used to work.

So why doesn’t that happen now?

Because something fundamental has changed—not about Trump, but about the alternative.

In the MAGA worldview, Democrats aren’t just wrong. They’re portrayed as so corrupt, so dishonest, and so dangerous that even overwhelming misconduct on their own side becomes tolerable by comparison.

At that point, moral judgment collapses into a single rule:

Whatever keeps the other side out of power is justified.

That’s why Trump’s behavior matters less than the environment around him.

The real engine of this moment isn’t Trump.
It’s the successful demonization of the left.

That’s why right-wing media has to ignore, distort, discredit, or reframe what Jack Smith says under oath about Trump’s role in trying to overturn the election and exploiting January 6th.

Often all at once.

Because if MAGA voters saw this information cleanly—without distortion—it wouldn’t just challenge Trump.

It would threaten the story they’ve been living inside.

And once a political identity is built on that story, evidence stops functioning as evidence. It feels like an attack.

This doesn’t happen by accident.

Inside the right-wing media ecosystem, the most extreme versions of what the far left wants are amplified relentlessly—until they come to stand in for the entire Democratic Party.

Day after day, viewers are taught that voting Democrat means endorsing the outermost edge of the coalition.

Fringe ideas are treated as inevitable outcomes.

Once that framing is installed, Trump’s conduct can never be the deciding factor—because the alternative has already been defined as catastrophic.

And I’ve seen the result of this up close.

I have close MAGA friends who tell me they’re exhausted by Trump.
They won’t be sad when he’s gone.

But they’re also clear about something else: that doesn’t mean they’re voting for a Democrat.

Not because Trump’s behavior doesn’t bother them.

But because, after years inside this media environment, the alternative no longer feels like a political disagreement. It feels like a threat to the country.

Once that happens, Trump’s conduct can never be the deciding factor.

And once a belief like that is installed, admitting you were misled becomes more painful than doubling down. So the mind protects itself.

That’s where we are.

This isn’t about Trump anymore.
It’s about what happens to a democracy when one side lives inside a sealed media ecosystem—and the other side keeps assuming better arguments will fix it.

Until that asymmetry is addressed, nothing breaks the spell.

that's pretty much it...the uninformed that think they are informed

Halifax2TheMax · January 28

HughFreakingDillon said:

We’ve even been dealing with this brainwashing on this board affecting so-called democrats/moderates who think everything democrat is “radical”. Hint: it isn’t. You’ve been fooled by fear.

From a non-pearl jam mike mcready

All things being equal, MAGA voters would never support a candidate accused of what Donald Trump is accused of.

Imagine 26 years ago if George W. Bush had been credibly accused of trying to overturn an election.
Or of being part of Jeffrey Epstein’s inner circle.

He’d be gone.

Even if that meant Al Gore became president.

That’s how politics used to work.

So why doesn’t that happen now?

Because something fundamental has changed—not about Trump, but about the alternative.

In the MAGA worldview, Democrats aren’t just wrong. They’re portrayed as so corrupt, so dishonest, and so dangerous that even overwhelming misconduct on their own side becomes tolerable by comparison.

At that point, moral judgment collapses into a single rule:

Whatever keeps the other side out of power is justified.

That’s why Trump’s behavior matters less than the environment around him.

The real engine of this moment isn’t Trump.
It’s the successful demonization of the left.

That’s why right-wing media has to ignore, distort, discredit, or reframe what Jack Smith says under oath about Trump’s role in trying to overturn the election and exploiting January 6th.

Often all at once.

Because if MAGA voters saw this information cleanly—without distortion—it wouldn’t just challenge Trump.

It would threaten the story they’ve been living inside.

And once a political identity is built on that story, evidence stops functioning as evidence. It feels like an attack.

This doesn’t happen by accident.

Inside the right-wing media ecosystem, the most extreme versions of what the far left wants are amplified relentlessly—until they come to stand in for the entire Democratic Party.

Day after day, viewers are taught that voting Democrat means endorsing the outermost edge of the coalition.

Fringe ideas are treated as inevitable outcomes.

Once that framing is installed, Trump’s conduct can never be the deciding factor—because the alternative has already been defined as catastrophic.

And I’ve seen the result of this up close.

I have close MAGA friends who tell me they’re exhausted by Trump.
They won’t be sad when he’s gone.

But they’re also clear about something else: that doesn’t mean they’re voting for a Democrat.

Not because Trump’s behavior doesn’t bother them.

But because, after years inside this media environment, the alternative no longer feels like a political disagreement. It feels like a threat to the country.

Once that happens, Trump’s conduct can never be the deciding factor.

And once a belief like that is installed, admitting you were misled becomes more painful than doubling down. So the mind protects itself.

That’s where we are.

This isn’t about Trump anymore.
It’s about what happens to a democracy when one side lives inside a sealed media ecosystem—and the other side keeps assuming better arguments will fix it.

Until that asymmetry is addressed, nothing breaks the spell.

*The following opinion is mine and mine alone and does not represent the views of my family, friends, government and/or my past, present or future employer. US Department of State: 1-888-407-4747.

Which is why POS like Scott Jennings and SmellyAnn CONway shouldn’t be given an additional platform on liberal/left media. They should be told the moment you start lying or spewing alternative facts, or just demonizing the opposite viewpoint, we’ll cut your mic, go to commercial and restart without you. Then we’ll tell our viewers that we’ve reached out to the repub party representatives and asked for participation in a fact based, reality based discussion of the issues. If you can’t find any takers, so be it. But surely there’s a local school board or town/city council member that might come on and have that discussion, right? Why put Herr Miller on for him to scream Nazi propaganda?

Grow some balls and call these fuckers out and don’t participate in that unreality media bubble, CNN, MSNOW, etc.

Ankle-biting Democrats

Comments

Categories