You’re right, Pug, a billion dollars in direct spending was derailed by people pointing out the bad things they were seeing. It definitely wasn’t the bad things that cost her the election, just the people acknowledging that the bad things existed and suggesting she do something different. I forgot, if you’re in a car with someone who is about to drive or a cliff, the best thing you can do is remain quiet; you wouldn’t want to distract the driver with your negativity. Once again, Pug, your brilliant insights have saved the day.
So you don’t think that negative campaigning against a candidate has an effect on the electorate?
I think it’s not fucking magic, Pug. There was far more negative campaigning coming from the hundreds of millions spent by the Trump campaign. There was even more money spent by Harris to negatively campaign against Trump, for all the good it did. But leftists complaining online threw the election? Everyone needs to shut up and smile, because if they criticize the Democrats too loudly they’ll collapse? Is that where we’re at?
I think it’s not fucking magic, Pug. There was far more negative campaigning coming from the hundreds of millions spent by the Trump campaign.
So?
There are millions of votes other than mine; it doesn’t mean that I’m not responsible for my vote, or my other actions.
But leftists complaining online threw the election?
No. But leftists playing negative PR games online contributed to the loss. I’ve said elsewhere, I don’t think they were the tipping point.
But neither was Iowa, yet everyone who voted for Trump or abstained in Iowa is a fucking contributor to the fascist regime.
Not being the deciding factor does not absolve you of the implications of your choices.
Everyone needs to shut up and smile, because if they criticize the Democrats too loudly they’ll collapse? Is that where we’re at?
We were going into an election everyone knew was going to be close, against a literal fascist.
Maybe a little of the ‘United Front’ spirit would’ve been welcome, instead of playing the usual games of “Undermine the SHITLIBS” when there was a candidate promising fascism, with the necessary background to confirm his intentions as sincere, as the only other choice in the running. It’s not even a question of “I oppose all aid to Israel”, but “Harris is a genocide supporter!” The issue was not voicing policy concerns; it was attacking the less vile of the only two candidates who could win.
Tell me, if the election had been lost by a few dozen votes, instead of a touch under two million, would your response be different? Or would it still be “Beating the negative PR drum is Just My Opinion”?
