So what did you mean when you said Harris needed “a strong, public, repudiation of her party’s extremists”? In the context of the discussion, you were complaining about people making exaggerated claims about the extent of Trump’s misogyny/transphobia/etc. So if those people aren’t the “extremists” you were thinking of, who were you thinking needs to be “repudiated”?
The issue is that when Kamala gives her center left-left position, people are associating far left positions with her. And because she never repudiates these people or distances herself from them, it sticks.
The main reason you need to repudiate those people is not because they make wild accusations about Trump, but because they push positions that the vast majority of Americans, including Democrats, disagree with. And so long as Kamala doesn’t actively repudiate those positions, the association continues.
Those people are also the ones arguing that Republicans want to make women property and to gas migrants, and I don’t think it would particularly hurt Kamala to have pointed out that this is ridiculous if the situation came up (like when McCain pointed out that Obama wasn’t secretly foreign), but that’s not the main issue Kamala needed to distance herself on.
Easy example - “your body my choice”.
My god, can you just shut-up.
Yes, Der-Trihs has a problem. I personally worry for them.
Calling him and 20 others ugly names is not helping you.
I’m offended, especially you calling Bippity Stupid.
(Oops. Said shut up again)
Why the vagueness? Who are “these people” she needs to repudiate? Do you know any of their names? What are these unpopular positions that “they” are pushing?
This is a joke, right, iiandyiiii? You did not actually present right wing trolls saying “your body my choice” to “own the libs” as evidence that the Republican party wants to turn women into property, right?
You realize that the guy who started that phrase, Fuentes, left the Republicans because they’re not antisemitic enough for him?
Obviously if a right wing poster quoted some random fuckwads from a protest, who are probably too far left to vote Democrat anyways, and tried to use that as evidence that Democrats don’t believe in policing, or that they believe that Israel should be destroyed, or that billionaires should be eaten, you’d rightly call them out for their bullshit.
Yet you’re doing literally exactly the same thing?
I look up to you as a remarkably good faith poster, so I’m honestly pretty shocked this would be the example you give.
Fuentes is not some obscure extremist - he’s (famously) been to dinner with Trump and has ties with many in the House. He’s not at all a fringe figure on the right.
I think this is what we’re trying to tell you - that this wasn’t normal before, but it’s becoming normal. The Tates are another example.
These are scumbags, but being a scumbag is mainstream Republican these days.
Offered without comment, because I’m sure there’s nothing to see, or worry about, here,
Yeah, the fact that they feel free to say these things is the only warning anyone is going to get.
Okay, did those ads actually exist? Can you link to one?
ETA: Just to keep goalposts in place, ideally one that was associated with the Harris campaign, or at least a prominent dem candidate.
I regularly see right-wingers online who advocate for taking away women’s right to vote. They claim feminism has ruined society. They blame women for allowing high immigration, and for wokeness in all its forms. They say you don’t solve the low birthrate by giving money to women, but by taking it away from us. By limiting education and jobs for women.
This isn’t most of the right, or most Trump voters, but it’s a growing minority. Apart from the claim that feminism ruined society, this isn’t something I used to see, even a few years ago. It’s definitely a way in which things are worse now, and I don’t want to see these ideas spread.
Being hysterical about it doesn’t help, but neither does denying the existence of these people.
You mean when Kanye West brought Fuentes with him to the White House?
Don’t get me wrong, a same president would have tossed both of them out on their asses. But you’re presenting this as Trump being buddies with Fuentes, when actually Kanye brought Fuentes along as one of his standard Nazi troll moves that he’s become so well known for lately.
And Fuentes famously had a falling out with Trump right before the election, refusing to endorse Trump for various reasons including JD Vance’s Indian wife and Trump’s support for Israel.
There are actual elected officials who have said things like “end policing”, but we can both agree that anyone trying to paint the Democrats as law enforcement abolitionists is a bad faith actors, right?
And what I’m trying to tell you is that this strategy - look how bad they are! They talked to Nick Fuentes once! Clearly they’re fully on board with his agenda! - is what we have been trying since 2015 at least, and it has been disastrous.
The vast majority of Trump voters aren’t people who say “HELL YEAH NICK FUENTES I LOVE THAT GUY”.
They’re people who say, “Who? I don’t really care, eggs are expensive this week”.
There aren’t nearly enough “NICK FUENTES FUCK YEAH” guys out there to give Trump the popular vote.
I’m not talking about strategy, I’m talking about facts (and, I suppose, supposition based on those facts) – the facts are that there are relatively prominent Republicans and Republican supporters who are pretty damn close to women should be property, and it’s not at all crazy to be concerned about them.
I don’t mean to imply that these people don’t exist, to an extent. I’m sure they do, especially online.
None of the Trump supporters I know are like that, though. They’re a lot like conservatives have always been, and they just don’t take the things we say about Trump seriously.
Ditto.
I mean, Trump is actually sending masked men to snatch legal immigrants with no criminal record off the streets and disappear them. Was there concern that he’d be bad for immigrants? Sure. Did anyone say he wanted to “gas the immigrants”? Not that i heard. And it certainly wasn’t one of my talking points when i walked around canvassing likely voters.
And he’s actually working to make it illegal to be trans. But i never saw an ad that used the word “genocide”.
And the ads i saw re women’s issues mostly talked about abortion rights. Which sure as hell are in bad shape right now, with Trump’s blessing.
But maybe you saw very different ads than i saw.
And your example of that is… Someone who is not a Republican because they’re not far right enough for him.
Someone could turn that right back around on you (and be far more correct because they’d be talking about “prominent Democrats”, not whackjobs who are far to the left of Democrats):
I’m not talking about strategy, I’m talking about facts (and, I suppose, supposition based on those facts) – the facts are that there are relatively prominent Democrats and Democratic supporters who are pretty damn close to the police should be abolished, and it’s not at all crazy to be concerned about them.
I’m sorry, but Nick Fuentes isn’t a “prominent Republican” any more than someone like Briahna Joy Gray is a “prominent Democrat”. Hell, she’s much, much closer to it than he ever was, given that she was a very prominent staffer on Bernie’s campaign. If you’re going to say that BJG’s views shouldn’t be used to paint the Democrats as a whole, you have to apply the same standard to Republicans. Fuentes is at least as far outside the right wing mainstream as BJG is outside the left wing mainstream.
Again, i did a lot of canvassing. I talked to a lot of Trump voters, because data is always messy. I only spoke with one who was crazy. Yes, most were concerned were inflation, or were common racists. But Trump actually is pushing crazy extreme ideals. Forget about whether Trump’s supporters listen to me, Trump’s supporters didn’t take what he said seriously, either. I spoke with a very ordinary, sane woman who said, “i was doing better when Trump was president”. I tried to warn her that his tariffs would make her life worse, not better. She just shrugged, said she tried to buy US, and things were better under Trump.
How is it supposed to be better to avoid talking about how crazy and evil trump is?
Still waiting for an answer to this simple and straightforward question.
Absolutely, talk about how wild putting big tariffs on everyone is, and how much damage it will do to the economy, and how crucial international relations are for America’s place in the world, and how enormously every American citizen benefits from global trade relations, and how Trump’s turn to Autarky is absolutely unhinged economic policy that will cause irreprable damage for decades to come.
Talk about how crucial America’s role in the unipolar global power structure has been, and how Trump’s erratic behavior threatens this delicate balance, both hurting America’s interests and risking global conflicts.
I don’t know why you think I would be opposed to talking about any of that sort of thing.
You should also talk about, for example, Trump allowing the states to ban abortion, and the harm this causes women. I absolutely never said that we shouldn’t highlight Trump’s attack on abortion rights, for example.
Is the difference between these things and something like “Trump wants to make women into property and take away their vote” or “Trump wants to gas migrants and trans people” really that hard to figure out?
Yes, this is true. Did you think it wasn’t?