If House Democrats don’t use every tool at their disposal to name names, kick ass, and stop further destruction, there will be hell to pay with the base.
No, I think we’ll just get called Nazi-equivalent if we don’t vote for lesser of two evils were told to vote for the next time around, as it has been for 50 years.
If you’re pedantic point here is voting for “libertarians”…
That’s the same as not voting.
People should have a problem with our party systems, but pretending it’s not what it is because that upsets you is childish.
Very few problems are solvable by pretending the problem doesn’t exist
The only thing that I said was that there will not be hell to pay for the Democrats if they do not enact any meaningful change. And, indeed, there won’t be, because if they did win this next time around, and they didn’t enact any meaningful change, and then next time around, when it came time to vote again, we would be having the exact same discussion, and I would be lampooned in the exact same way, for the exact same reasons that you’ve already laid out right here and now. And so very plainly there will not be hell to pay for the Democrats.
What would hell to pay consist of if not them not being voted for?
And so if you agree that we all must vote for the Democrats, for the presidential election, then I don’t see how that isn’t equivalent to saying there won’t be hell to pay for Democrats.
“If House Democrats don’t use every tool at their disposal to name names, kick ass, and stop further destruction, there will be hell to pay with the base.”
From the article.
I am saying:
" Even if the House Democrats do none of those things, there will not be hell to pay with the base"
The reason I say this is because, even if they do none of those things, they will still constitute the lesser of two evils for all future elections. That fact, coupled with the base’s strong conviction to vote for the lesser evil, means the House Democrats will not have “hell to pay” with the base.
That only makes sense if you view the DNC as a monolithic organization in complete lockstep…
And not 400+ voting members who just kicked out the Neil beral branch who had controlled the party for decades even thru Obama…
Which, to be fair is often where these conversations tend to end up.
Do you understand now?
Acting like the DNC from February 2025 to today is in anyway responsible for what prior DNCs did just doesn’t make any logical sense.
Which is why the result of these exchanges usually boils down to:
They don’t have a basic idea how our political system works.
Which is cool, just fucking spend the 15 minutes to learn it. You don’t even have to trust me for a link, it’s taught in civics classes all over the country and I’m sure there’s a Wikipedia and YouTube videos. You don’t have to “trust” any source I would provide.
I actually already knew that, but maybe you can enlighten me as to why that has any bearing on the claim “Even if the House Democrats don’t use every tool at their disposal to name names, kick ass, and stop further destruction, there will not be hell to pay with the base”?
If you’re pedantic point here is voting for “libertarians”…
That’s the same as not voting.
People should have a problem with our party systems, but pretending it’s not what it is because that upsets you is childish.
Very few problems are solvable by pretending the problem doesn’t exist
The only thing that I said was that there will not be hell to pay for the Democrats if they do not enact any meaningful change. And, indeed, there won’t be, because if they did win this next time around, and they didn’t enact any meaningful change, and then next time around, when it came time to vote again, we would be having the exact same discussion, and I would be lampooned in the exact same way, for the exact same reasons that you’ve already laid out right here and now. And so very plainly there will not be hell to pay for the Democrats.
What would hell to pay consist of if not them not being voted for?
And so if you agree that we all must vote for the Democrats, for the presidential election, then I don’t see how that isn’t equivalent to saying there won’t be hell to pay for Democrats.
I legitimately don’t understand what you’re even trying to say…
“If House Democrats don’t use every tool at their disposal to name names, kick ass, and stop further destruction, there will be hell to pay with the base.”
From the article.
I am saying:
" Even if the House Democrats do none of those things, there will not be hell to pay with the base"
The reason I say this is because, even if they do none of those things, they will still constitute the lesser of two evils for all future elections. That fact, coupled with the base’s strong conviction to vote for the lesser evil, means the House Democrats will not have “hell to pay” with the base.
That only makes sense if you view the DNC as a monolithic organization in complete lockstep…
And not 400+ voting members who just kicked out the Neil beral branch who had controlled the party for decades even thru Obama…
Which, to be fair is often where these conversations tend to end up.
Do you understand now?
Acting like the DNC from February 2025 to today is in anyway responsible for what prior DNCs did just doesn’t make any logical sense.
Which is why the result of these exchanges usually boils down to:
Which is cool, just fucking spend the 15 minutes to learn it. You don’t even have to trust me for a link, it’s taught in civics classes all over the country and I’m sure there’s a Wikipedia and YouTube videos. You don’t have to “trust” any source I would provide.
I actually already knew that, but maybe you can enlighten me as to why that has any bearing on the claim “Even if the House Democrats don’t use every tool at their disposal to name names, kick ass, and stop further destruction, there will not be hell to pay with the base”?