“We recognize that, in the next four years, our decision may cause us to have an even more difficult time. But we believe that this will give us a chance to recalibrate, and the Democrats will have to consider whether they want our votes or not.”

That’s gotta be one of the strangest reasonings I’ve heard in a while.

      • capital@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        11 months ago

        Na mine is “those idiots think getting the party furthest from their supposed ideal elected will be good for them”.

        • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          11 months ago

          Then don’t accuse me of being a Republican for pointing out that Democrats did fuck all to preserve Roe.

          • capital@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            11 months ago

            I didn’t. I was sarcastically pointing out that we have a 0% chance of that happening under republicans.

            Meanwhile if we had elected Clinton we would be looking at a very different SCOTUS and still have Roe standing.

            I naively thought that out little Trump boondoggle would remind people of what can happen when they forget what kind of system we all function under but here we are, again, saying “you really don’t want to do that”.

            Guess we need another round to make things even worse?

            • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              11 months ago

              I didn’t.

              Bullshit.

              Meanwhile if we had elected Clinton we would be looking at a very different SCOTUS and still have Roe standing.

              If Clinton had run as though she needed votes in states she ignored, she might have won.

              But trying to get votes is beneath Democrats.

              • capital@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                9
                ·
                11 months ago

                lol the fuck? It’s literally a facetious statement “maybe republicans will do it” while knowing full well that would never happen.

                Nothing in that comment even slightly suggests I’m calling you a Republican.

                How does one “ignore” a state?

                That’s it, if Biden doesn’t come knocking on my door I’m not voting for him. Otherwise, how could I ask him questions and gather information on his policy positions? [this is another sarcastic paragraph meant to point out the fact that people shouldn’t need a visit from a candidate to make a voting decision. TV and the internet exist.]

                • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  9
                  arrow-down
                  6
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  How does one “ignore” a state?

                  By not campaigning in them.

                  That’s it, if Biden doesn’t come knocking on my door I’m not voting for him. Otherwise, how could I ask him questions and gather information on his policy positions?

                  I mean, that’s what Clinton failed to do in swing states. And it’s why she lost. You may think that swing states have an overinflated sense of their own importance and that talking to the flyover hayseeds is unbecoming, but ultimately, votes are earned, and can be lost. Clinton couldn’t grasp that. She lost.

                  You can’t grasp it either.

                  Maybe it’s because understanding it means you’ll have to admit that Clinton earned her loss.