newfie

You realize that by demanding people shut up about genocide, you've actually incentivized users to talk about genocide, right?

I am serious that anecdotal evidence is not statistically significant and that, therefore, one random child is not representative of anything

So if the above person was familiar with Whitmer then I should presume that most people also are?

Your points aren't making sense. Anecdotal evidence gathered from a non-American child's comments on a random post on a fringe STEM-lord website is not representative of anything.

In what way was it more progressive than Medicare and Medicaid?

Lyndon Johnson and the Great Society is the high-water mark of progressive domestic legislation. Nothing in the 60 years since then is remotely close - quite the opposite, actually

Yeah my point is that voters did show up. Dems did historically well in 2022 for an incumbent party

Its just that the structure of our electoral politics favors rural areas and gerrymandered districts. Which currently means the red team benefits. Which isn't the fault of recent voters

The child above me and their lack of knowledge has no relation to prudent political decision making, and their opinions are not reflective or representative of anything

A random ignoramus on the internet does not determine anything, much less what is wise for the country or the Democratic Party.

What evidence is there that Kamal will even try to pass an agenda that is similar to what Walz did in Minnesota?

I think Walz is the most progressive governor in the country and would love to see his policies implemented on a national level. What evidence is there that Kamala's administration will even attempt to enact those policies? She has been light on policy, with the exception of supporting Israel and building the wall via the bipartisan immigration bill that the Dems are now running on.

I'm assuming Tester wins in Montana and dems have a blue house and 50/50 senate. But even with that, idk why we would presume she would be as progressive as Walz

consistent with a trend that is quite obvious

What trend?

sealioning

Using terms like this makes one sound socially maladjusted. Which makes sense given the site we're on. Which reinforces my point that a random comment has no representative value - people on here are STEM-brained weirdos or are bots. Either way, not exactly representative of the median adult US voter

Why is it an issue that she is affiliated with Trump?

If anything, this is a great development for Democrats. Loomer is incompetent. So we should hope that Trump is listening to her

Biden did historically well in the midterms tbh. If it wasn't for gerrymandering and a population capped House, Dems would still have complete control of Congress

You're blaming an individual for the actions of a group that they are not a part of and did not participate in. That's collective guilt

and/or

"And/or" is grammatically incorrect. It should be "or" because "or" does not preclude the possibility of both being present

Why are you utilizing collective guilt in your argument?

What are the enumerated elements of that per the statute, and how did Vance violate them?

don't know enough about Whitmer

Then you aren't informed enough to even be talking about this

Name the criminal statute he should be charged with violating.

Agreed that he likely does not have a 1st amendment defense. But you still need a specific criminal statute to charge him with. I am unaware of any that he has likely violated with his xenophobic remarks

Demagoguery that targets a marginalized group is an American tradition. It is unlikely that he committed any crime