If you look at the Trump candidacy and things like qanon, it’d be hard to argue that the internet isn’t making inroads. My generation let this go on for long enough, it’s not about the lulz anymore. Lots of people are getting hurt, and it can still get worse.

I occasionally go through my old comments to see how things got received, see if I could improve my wording, things like that. General communications skill polishing. It’s not consuming as much as critically reviewing, but whatever.

Since I’m adding engagement on lemmy, and I do put some effort in to be amusing or informative or whatever (usually anyway), yes I do feel like I am helping. If I was on reddit or something, not so much.

I’d say both the parties are pretty capitalist. The repubs were interested in finding their challenger, they didn’t know who it would be yet. The dems, all the way down to the majority of voters, were interested in supporting their incumbent, not interested in a chaotic primary fight.

I think that’s still largely the case.

So, that’s pretty much the same order as always, not seeing how that helps anyone.

And you can look up who runs if you want. You do not need to see debates to figure it out, someone announces after they file their paperwork, then its up to them to convince people to support them. You’re pretending like the DNC needs to do all this work to serve us up a platter of great options, but ignoring that it’s the candidates that determine how they get received. Don’t forget, most Americans still hate the idea of communism, too, even if they don’t actually know what it is.

This conspiracy theory nonsense is getting tiresome. The real world isn’t that simple.

Okay then, next was SC and Nevada. How far do we have to go before we see these changes? And who was the contender that was hurt by the changes?

That’s funny, I remember Iowa and NH going first like they do every year.

Polling, usually. Otherwise primary results. Most states did have their primary, btw, only a handful cancelled. Each state has their own way of doing it.

Can you name a candidate that was doing well at any point? Better than low single-digits? Dean was the only one I heard much about.

edit: You do remember the write-in uncommitted thing, right? Those were primaries.

Bernie decides if Bernie runs. He has already said he won’t though, he’d have to change his mind. He’s also getting up there in years unfortunately.

This is true, it is very possible.

One thing not enough people are discussing is the incumbent advantage though. We’d lose that edge, and be subject to the standard backlash-against-the-last-party phenomenon.

We’d need a candidate strong enough to compensate for that lost advantage. And there’s the big problem, dems have had very few strong leaders since Obama retired. Bernie was our strongest, and he’s not even officially a dem.

I’m leery of polls these days. One thing I like about the Bulwark is they do a lot of focus groups, where you can hear from voters at a more detailed level, in their own words.

It’s still not a great method, since its such a small sample size. But I think it’s better than polls of poll-taking Americans.

And why? Because Dean Philips was doing so strongly, garnering appeal from progressives with his centrist positions?

If you want strong candidates, they need to run. If nobody good runs, then I think we’ve found the problem.

“Party leaders” did not shove Biden down our throats. Unless you’re arguing that the party leaders of the dems are all the suburban soccer moms of the countries, and their consistency at voting. Then yes, that’s true.

And just pulling in revenues with clickbaity tactics.

It does not provide the details, but I highly doubt the polling was done anonymously online. You’re right, that would be completely useless.

However, polling done offline also needs to be anonymized, even though it is offline and the pollster knows the identities of the participants, simply to protect them from repercussions.

… using the internet for fake bullshit? Impossible.

makes community about video game arguments.

then makes community about not arguing with me.

He specifically withheld an order of cluster munitions over concerns the Israelis were using them improperly, well after the invasion was underway.

Not too different from Biden withholding the bomb shipments over Rafah.

A politician loyal to his own laws and courts, sure, I absolutely trust them more. They’re aren’t all, though. Ultimately a terrorist and a politician with no regard for their own law are very similar. Power-mad. A terrorist can even become a politician, it happens sometimes.

Yes, hamas is not good people, I do not trust them. I don’t trust politicians either though, especially the more extreme ones.

That’s why I say what sort of people the Israelis are remains to be seen. We don’t know yet. We won’t know until this is all over and we see what has become of those Gazans that are innocent. Will they be alive or dead? That will be telling.

I’m sorry for upsetting you, but don’t put words in my mouth. I’m not arguing to let Gazans “do whatever they want”, I have not said that or anything similar. If you remember, I said earlier that terrorists need to be dealt with, right?

It’s those innocents, those that are not part of hamas, that’s the sticking point. For whatever good or bad reasons they cannot leave, the fact is that today, they 100% cannot leave. So, they should not be callously butchered and/or starved simply because of what their fathers and neighbors have done.