How do you know who influenced Obama’s decisions?

If Trump and the GOP accomplish their goals there will not be any more “rounds” or elections.

This is the reason it’s a bad strategy

In this context, “valid strategy” = everyone is worse off, protestors get the opposite of what they wanted and fascist gain power.

In this context, “punishing the other player” = punishing yourself.

The timing, the fact that it was only used against democrats is a sign that the GOP will use it to their advantage.

The way it was done is also an issue. In this context, the message of the protest was that democrats needed to give the protestors what they want. Otherwise democrats wouldn’t get votes from the protestors. Resulting in the protestors helping Trump get elected.

Democrats have constituents that do not agree with those protestors and so democrats would’ve lost votes by giving into the protestors. Resulting in the protestors helping Trump get elected in this outcome also.

In my opinion, supporters of a party should express what they want changed by engaging with their politicians.

The only time that won’t work with a politician is if their intel indicates they gain more votes by not making those changes.

In that scenario, the supporters need to accept that the majority rules in a democracy and vote for the lesser of two evils because that is in the best interest of those supporters.

Instead what happened was protestors cut off their nose to spite their face and now things are much worse as a result.

So if Trump wasn’t the candidate that trump is, he wouldn’t have won? I mean he was Trump tho.

This statement indicates you think Trump won because of who he is.

My statement points out it is not because of who he is but instead because Russia chose to interfere in elections.

In other words, if Trump dies today, Russia would find another person to fill his place and would use the same propaganda tactics to help get them into a position of power.

This is because Trump is a puppet. Your comment was evidence you don’t understand that that is why he won.

Every candidate will have criticisms.

Every politician will amplify their opponent’s criticism to impact election results.

Validating concern trolls isn’t the solution.

Getting everyone to vote in everyone’s best interest is.

Allowing the GOP to gain more power and end democracy is unproductive.

Trump has been trying to become president since 2000 and he has been talking about it since the 80s. It wasn’t until Russia got involved with their propaganda machine that he was able to start his cult.

Without Russian support he wouldn’t be anybody.

Not all voters agreed with those protests. Arguably, the candidate would’ve lost by more if they listened to the protests and addressed the issues that were brought up.

What we can’t argue about is the fact that the protests hurt voter turnout and now Trump is the president.

Maybe if it wasn’t Trump and fascism on the line.

But in this context you’re referring to the prevention of fascism as “unproductive”.

That is exactly how it works. Criticizing the better option of the two will reduce turnout for that candidate. That’s the whole purpose of political campaigns.

That’s how Trump got elected. We had a better option but people complained so much that the worse option won.

Your attempt to claim both sides are as similar as Hitler and Himmler is an obvious bad faith argument of “both sides are the same”.

If Trump didn’t have the help of foreign nations, the billionaire class, voter suppression, the GOP, etc. Harris would’ve won in 2024, and Biden would’ve won in 2020 without Covid.

The article writer’s opinion doesn’t even make sense:

But it is difficult for Senate Democrats to persuade voters to care about judicial confirmation battles when they, the Democrats, are so uninterested in fighting them.

It’s not like voters don’t know Trump or the type of judicial nominations he will make.

How do you “fight” without enough votes?

They can either vote against the judicial nominations or not and the outcome is the same.

You can’t “vote harder” to change the outcome.

Obvious bad faith argument.

Because Republicans hold a 53-47 advantage in the Senate, it will be difficult for Democrats to regularly defeat judicial nominations.

The article admits democrats don’t have the votes to do anything but tried to blame them for not being able to do anything.

Pretty clearly a bad faith argument meant to help the GOP.

Good thing they protested Kamala’s event. Now that Trump is in office we don’t have to worry about inequality, wars, healthcare, wages/employee rights OR voting.

Both sides amiright?

bOtH sIdEs R sAmE

Seattle’s current city attorney is a trump backing Republican who was elected all because Seattle at the time was too scared of a candidate who once talked about abolishing the police

Election results say otherwise

But she lost because voters were convinced she ran on that leftists policy. Whether she actually did doesn’t change the intentions of the voters.

This is another good example of leftist policies causing an election loss. Even in a place as blue as Seattle.

Friday’s proposal to permanently ban hemp THC comes after years of complaints from California’s licensed marijuana industry, which has claimed that it faces unfair competition from unregulated hemp companies. Marijuana companies face sky-high regulatory costs, especially in California, and can only sell their products through state-licensed retailers. Hemp companies, on the other hand, face almost no regulations and have historically been able to sell their intoxicating drugs almost anywhere, including liquor stores, grocery stores and online.

This disparity between the two industries has created pressure on governors like Newsom to protect their state-regulated cannabis companies.

This decision makes sense to me.

It’s weird that every time someone goes against Trump there is an effort to manufacture consent to hate those people.

The majority of voters didn’t plead for that