208
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 20 Apr 2025
208 points (100.0% liked)
politics
24814 readers
2124 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Obama won because he appealed to centrists
He ran on a public healthcare option, bailing out homeowners, regulating banks, closing Gitmo, ending the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Saying he appealed to centrists is revisionist nonsense.
Those are liberal policies not leftist. Saying Obama was a leftist is revisionist nonsense.
No, this was the liberal policy.
Obama won by running to Clinton's left.
This is still centrists which is why he won.
So, is there any candidate you won't retroactively call a centrist in order to justify moving even further to the right from where the party is now?
You are so married to the idea of moving to the right and only the right that you are unwilling to admit that the situation has changed. In the last three elections (I know, in your mind it's still the 90s and nothing has changed, but humor me) we have run three centrist candidates. Two lost, one won but it was a squeaker.
Moving to the right and only the right has hit a wall. You'll advocate for it forever, regardless of the actual political reality. After all, the alternative is a nightmare hellscape where people are paid a living wage for their labor and healthcare is more than a means to extract every last dime from people before they die.
I’m not advocating for the move to the right. Just pointing out it is a result of low leftists voter turnout.
Then acknowledge that it has failed.
If it is what the voters voted for then it has not failed.
And you think they voted for it?
Let's see if you can stop pretending it's still the 90s.
How do you think our politicians were elected?
harris lost in 2024. clinton lost in 2016. biden barely squeaked by in 2020.
It's been 12 years since democrats' last decisive victory. Keep running to the right. It's still the 90s, after all. I knew you would never acknowledge that moving to the right is a losing strategy.
EDIT: math.
Biden won with record breaking voter turnout. Trump lost by more in 2020 than Harris did in 2024.
How can Trumps loss in 2020 be “squeaking by” if it is a larger loss than Harris’ loss? Your bias is showing.
2020 was a decisive victory because Biden appealed to centrists.
Progressives have never had a victory let alone a decisive one.
Moving right is what the voters have voted for.
It took 4 days to even determine who won. But since Biden is a centrist, you're going to pretend it was a landslide.
Your wing of the party refused to read the writing on the wall.
It took that long because Trump was denying the election results. Just like you are now.
Your wing of the party has consistently lost elections for so long that they need to team up with the DNC they criticize to even have a platform.
Liar. I mean, there's literally nothing else to it. You are just straight up lying.
Trump denied the results, yes, but that's not why it took so long to determine who won. And you damned well know it.
As long as no one moves to the left for any reason at all ever, any lie will suit you.
Liar. Trump denied the election results and that resulted in recounts. And you damn we’ll know it.
As long as the voters across the ideological spectrum elect centrists that represent their average ideology, you will lie about voters wanting to move left and any lie will suit you.
So you should have no difficulty whatsoever finding a source for any recount that trump demanded that delayed the results of the 2020 election.
Or like I said, you're a liar.
They elected trump last time. How much more like trump should democrats be? As though there's a limit to how far to the right you want the party to be.
Says the guy who pretends that Obama was a clinton-style centrist and that biden beat trump in a landslide.
I’ll do that if producing the source results in you admitting you’re wrong. You’re already denying the election results though so it is reasonable to expect you to move the goalpost and waste my time.
That’s for the voters to decide. All we know for sure is they did not choose the option furthest to the left.
Says the 2020 election denier
Go ahead, then.
You made the claim that trump delayed the election results. You know you can't provide evidence because we both know you were lying.
Guess that makes you happy.
Libel.
https://web.mit.edu/healthyelections/www/final-reports/recounts-election-contests.html
Now, you're going to pretend that anything but immediate concession is moving the goalposts.
I'll remind you that it was never in contest that trump disputed the election results. Just your bullshit assertion that his disputes delayed the results of the 2020 elections.
Let's start with recounts, then move on to lawsuits.
There were two states that had recounts in 2020, Georgia and Wisconsin.
Georgia's recount concluded on November 19. The election was called 12 days prior, on November 7. It did not delay the election results.
Wisconsin's recount concluded on November 29. It also did not delay the election results.
Every single lawsuit listed by the source you provided:
Donald J. Trump for President Inc. v. Hobbs was filed on November 7, the same day the election was called for Biden. It clearly did not succeed in delaying the results. Here's a source for that. https://healthyelections-case-tracker.stanford.edu/detail?id=366
Arizona Republican Party v. Fontes was filed on November 12, 5 days after the election had been called. https://healthyelections-case-tracker.stanford.edu/detail?id=376
Ward v. Jackson was November 30. https://healthyelections-case-tracker.stanford.edu/detail?id=408
Stevenson v. Ducey was December 4. https://healthyelections-case-tracker.stanford.edu/detail?id=416
Burk v. Ducey, December 7. https://healthyelections-case-tracker.stanford.edu/detail?id=422
Wood v. Raffensperger, November 25. https://healthyelections-case-tracker.stanford.edu/detail?id=417
Trump v. Raffensperger, December 4. https://healthyelections-case-tracker.stanford.edu/detail?id=414
Pearson v. Kemp, November 25. https://healthyelections-case-tracker.stanford.edu/detail?id=401
Boland v. Raffensperger, November 30. https://healthyelections-case-tracker.stanford.edu/detail?id=403
King v. Whitmer, November 25. https://healthyelections-case-tracker.stanford.edu/detail?id=410
Johnson v. Benson III, November 26. https://healthyelections-case-tracker.stanford.edu/detail?id=411
Johnson v. Benson II, November 15. https://healthyelections-case-tracker.stanford.edu/detail?id=384
Costantino v. Detroit, November 9. https://healthyelections-case-tracker.stanford.edu/detail?id=367
Stokke v. Cegavske, Finally one that was filed before the election was called. This one was filed on November 5. There is nothing in the document you linked nor in this link: https://healthyelections-case-tracker.stanford.edu/detail?id=352 that indicates in any way that any injunction of any sort was put in place to delay or cease any count. It did not delay the results.
Law v. Whitmer, November 17. https://healthyelections-case-tracker.stanford.edu/detail?id=387
Rodimer v. Gloria, November 19. https://healthyelections-case-tracker.stanford.edu/detail?id=390
Becker v. Cannizzaro, November 18. https://healthyelections-case-tracker.stanford.edu/detail?id=389
Ziccarelli v. Allegheny County Board of Elections I, November 12. https://healthyelections-case-tracker.stanford.edu/detail?id=378
Ziccarelli v. Allegheny County Board of Elections II, November 16. https://healthyelections-case-tracker.stanford.edu/detail?id=385
Ziccarelli v. Westmoreland County Board of Elections, November 18. https://healthyelections-case-tracker.stanford.edu/detail?id=391
Donald J. Trump for President Inc. v. Bucks County Bd. of Elections, November 9. https://healthyelections-case-tracker.stanford.edu/detail?id=369
In re: Canvass of Absentee and Mail-In Ballots of November 3, 2020 General Election V, November 10. https://healthyelections-case-tracker.stanford.edu/detail?id=383
Your source is factual and reliable. But it does not say what you falsely claim it does.
I called it. You’re moving the goalpost…
Here's your original assertion:
Your source does not support it, and I explained at length how.
You didn't even read one word of my reply.
centrists have a 27% approval rating for a reason.
Which is better than progressives approval rating for a reason.
Got numbers for that or are you lying yet again?
Yeah I got them from the same source as OPs “27%”
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/democratic-party-hits-new-polling-low-voters-want-fight-trump-harder-rcna196161
Here's a source for the 27% figure. Now where's your source?
The person that posted that number wasn’t you. How could you know their source unless you are using it as an alt account or lying?
There's this thing on the internet called a search engine. I just looked up "democrats 27%" without the quotes.
Now where's your source?
Why the progressive ‘Squad’ is getting smaller after defeats this primary cycle
That's odd. I don't see a listed approval rating. You said it was lower and I would like to compare the numbers.
All that article tells me is that AIPAC can buy primary candidates.
I can’t understand the source for you
You don't even understand it for yourself. You just post links and assert that they support your false claims when they just don't. Bet you didn't even read it.
You want me to read it for you too?!
How about you read it for you? You clearly haven't yet.
Were you just posting links and expecting no one to read them and call you out on it?
No me. Yes u
Yes, I've read the article. No, you haven't. Glad we're on the same page for once.
No u
Behold, the height of centrist discourse. I'd ask if you have a source that actually supports your claim yet, but since your claim was bullshit, we both know you can't supply one.
have a poll that proves that or you just pulled that info directly out of your rear like so much of what you say?