

Is that really more cost-effective than billboards in swing states?
If someone claims something happened on the fediverse without providing a link, they’re lying.
Is that really more cost-effective than billboards in swing states?
That’ll matter.
Eggs are both especially expensive due to bird flu and a cheap staple that many people relied on. Everything has gotten more expensive due to inflation but they made an extreme and relatable example.
Christ, if you stopped trying to judge the moral rightness of voters for half a minute you might figure out how to actually win an election.
Good, but why put it in Times Square?
Everyone’s angry, nobody can agree on what the problem is or what to do about it.
America has already been sold out. Almost every year, no matter who’s in charge, the military gets bigger while everything else gets cut. The only people who benefit from it are military contractors and politicians. Of all the many wars since WWII, not one of them has actually benefitted ordinary people, and a lot of them have made the lives of ordinary people much worse for no reason. But because it’s what the rich want, there’s complete bipartisan support for it. People are struggling more and more every day to access education, healthcare, even basic necessities, while even our infrastructure is falling apart, but we have an endless supply of bombs and weapons, spending more on that than the next 9 countries combined.
If you actually care about US security, you should support cutting the military in favor of domestic spending, because at this point, who’s going to stick their neck out to protect such a dysfunctional system? But no, even the supposedly “left-leaning” party is fully on board with militarism and jingoism while the core rots. To the point of attacking conservatives from the right over it!
As I say in my other comment in this thread, Trump isn’t actually going to cut the military, he increased military spending in his first term and will most likely do so again. However, because of insane liberals who somehow still believe in “benevolent interventionism” even after Iraq and Afghanistan, Trump is able to triangulate and pick up antiwar, libertarian types who can’t see through his act. Liberals do everything in their power to help him by openly supporting militarism and denouncing anyone who opposes it as a “Russian bot” (or similar), regardless of their reasons.
The bizarre thing is how someone can square the circle of angrily opposing military cuts while not recognizing that they’re a right-winger.
The weirdest to me are variations of, “If God didn’t exist it would make me feel bad.” Uhh???
I’ll believe it when I see it. Military spending increased in his first term and talk is cheap.
If he actually followed through on cutting the military budget by half, it’d be an incredible move and I’d start considering him the lesser evil. But it’s all for show, it’s triangulation to appeal to certain groups. End of the day, he’s a right winger and right wingers won’t cut the military.
Sure, but it can still cause a lot of destruction in the meantime if it decides to go out with a bang.
The US has been going all-in on hard power while soft power declines. There’s a lot of rich individuals who benefit from military contracts but don’t care as much about actually maintaining the empire. The big risk is that Americans are going to recognize this disparity and start WWIII in an effort to leverage the one area that the US has an advantage to retain hegemony.
I know her positions. The point is that you haven’t said a word defending her based on those positions or any other relevant quality. All you can say in her defense is that her positions aren’t illegal to hold and that she’s a minority. That’s literally it.
By the way, I still haven’t heard you say that the Democrats should’ve been more hawkish in the Middle East like Tulsi wanted, so I assume you’re aware that you’re full of shit.
You haven’t said a word about her positions or what she said.
I like dying by gunshot more than dying by electrocution.
Your best defense is, “She is free to speak on the point of view that you don’t like,” which is another way of saying, “The things she’s said aren’t illegal.” That, and, “If you don’t like her you’re a racist and sexist.” Absolutely pathetic, lazy, and stupid arguments.
Lol, right. So when she was still calling herself a democrat and went on Fox News as far back as 2015 to shit talk Obama for not being hawkish enough in the Middle East, did the democrats “push her” to do that? How, exactly? Say it, that you think the democrats should’ve been more hawkish like Tulsi wanted.
Oh, but you can’t, can you? Because she flip flopped into pretending to be an isolationist, as soon as it was convenient. And suckers like you eat it up hook, line, and sinker.
Of course you’d also like RFK. If you buy into one insincere opportunist grifter who believes in nothing, why not another?
Wouldn’t they be legally liable for that unless they can prove it in court?
100%. We need people like Mick Lynch
Lol. I’m sure you’re playing those cards in good faith.
It couldn’t have anything to do with her politics or the fact that she’s an opportunist with no principles who flipped to the right as soon as it was personally advantageous for her. Nope, every single Democrat, including those who are women, racial minorities, or female racial minorities, could only possibly dislike her because of racism and sexism 🙄
God I hate Tulcels.
Were people happy? Most of the people in my circles weren’t, but maybe my friends are just cool.