Granted, it looks like a chicken or egg conundrum, but this beast was created in a lab. How do we de-engineer this beast in the same lab, using the same tools & the labs methods? The lab of course is our unique democratic constitutional republic.

Doesn't that suggest that unregulated & virtually unlimited money in politics has reset the rules, & there4 the real question is how do we rein in individual & institutional campaign contributions? Otws, how can mere voters, rather than funders/megalomaniacs, dictate politician's policies/platforms?

There are only 2 inferences to be drawn, either Carlson is stupid, or he's duplicitous. Both should disqualify him as an authority figure on any topic.

You're so deep in moral outrage you don't see that you are the person throwing a tantrum. That's classic.

Oh honey, bless your heart.

I said nothin about doomers. I'm talking about neg partisanship, wch on the left is neg activism, i.e. urging people not to vote for DEM candidates who don't say everything you want. Words have meanings, & all words don't mean the same thing. Stop rotting your brain on videos/games. Read some books.

You may not like it, but since it is the reality, it is the point. Your perspective is that of an idealistic child. Good luck.

Who is the "alt right dipshit" and how am I a "groupie", other than by someone's accusation. It all seems very McCarthyism-like. Condemnation by association, not by anything I've done, but don't even prove the association. "Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?"

Under the sway of neg partisanship, amidst hyper-polarization, their casting DEMs as demons increases their turnout, while you depress DEM turnout by casting DEMs as demons. Own that.

Here's the rub. By crapping on DEMs who don't adopt the maximalist position on your paramount issue in the primary or general, you depress DEM turnout. Turnout determines outcomes when running against an illiberal party & demagoguery.

The point is that the 2 candidates platforms & campaigns were vastly different. Yet both lost. Since there is no guarantee either way, the only non-losing strategy is to vote DEM in the general.

People like you spent the entire election season crapping on Biden/Harris. Negative partisanship is how illiberal party turnout is increased, but depresses turnout for the party wch actually wants to work for the common good. Neg partisanship depressed DEM turnout in 2024.
Own that.

If anything it was contrasting the 2, w/ the critical point being that if the candidate who most aligns w/ your views doesn't win, then vote for the remaining DEM. THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT! Do what you want in the primary, but vote for the DEM in the general, no matter who. Pretty effing simple.

You could have just clarified it now. Not that big of a deal. Yet all you have to offer is hauteur.

I have no idea what that even means, so how can I possibly respond?

It's a reality check not a gotcha. I thought Kat A.'s campaign was brilliant, but she still lost. In that case, voting for the remaining DEM wld be the only option for me. Maybe you'd abstain, vote 3rd party or even for the GOPer out of spite. That clearly would be stupid & self-defeating.

Kat Abughazaleh ran a brilliant out-of-the-box campaign geared toward courting hard leftists. How'd that work out? Not even out of the primary bc neg partisanship is the dominant force once an already illiberal political party is dominated by a demagogue, esp w/ loose election financing & RW media.

Politics isn't a desert where you can just worry about the one thing on the horizon. Even if it was, sticking your head in the sand to avoid reality isn't much of a tactic, and demonstrates a dearth of strategic awareness.

Good v bad is binary thinking. If moral outrage was sufficient to win elections, elections wouldn't be necessary. The US is a multicultural, pluralistic society, beset by material, mortal & moral concerns, so 1 issue won't ensure victory but 1 issue maximalist absolutism cld imperil a campaign.

What are you going to do if the DEM who says that isn't the one who wins the primary? If you then abstain & dissuade others from voting, will you take a measure of responsibility for allowing the GOP candidate to win, and for what that candidate's admin does throughout the world?

Netanyahu has literally slept in Jared Kushner's childhood bedroom. That constitutes another major conflict of interest.

Right out in the open, Donald Trump is suing his own IRS to try to steal $10 BILLION taxpayer dollars.

I just introduced a bill that would make this theft ILLEGAL.

New newspeak entry just dropped:
Grievance-based grifting = freedom!

Bending the rules, attacking the institutions & disrupting the processes of succession, to entrench power, is ACTING corruptly, not succumbing to corruption. Conservatives tend to elide agency to their advantage, but attribute it to liberals when it disadvantages liberals.

The technique explained below is spectacular. I'm not sure I can confidently execute it every time, but I'll try. The examples below give a better handle.

You invoked the LeBron hypo, so you disingenuously offered a steel man arg. Your closing post is a politely peremptory way to quash discourse & disregard other ppl's concerns. IOW it's authoritarian. Authoritarianism is always opposed to someone's dignity & justice. But sure, let's end this.

Until these nuances enter discourse no resolution that honors & protects all people can be achieved, so it is useless, nay, self-harming, for trans people to insist that DEMs pass laws mandating open access to gendered spaces.

Not reckoning w/ those uncertainties, but insisting that everyone's gender assertions be honored, will make trans people's existence more precarious. Esp trans women, who will be viewed w/ extreme skepticism in order to prevent cis men posing as trans women from accessing women's spaces, etc.

Trans absolutism is insisting that every trans person, no matter what stage of transitioning they are in, is entitled to enter gender specific spaces & participate in gender specific social activities of the gender w/ wch they identify. That position elicits uncertainties that must be reckoned w/.

Negative partisanship is the predominant phenomenon of U.S. national politics, & has been since Gingrich. Trump's demagoguery exacerbated the role of negative partisanship, so now most conservative voters & increasing numbers of liberal voters are activated by emotions, rather than discernment.