I've voted D in every election of my life, including Biden and Harris. Don't put this on me.
Dems had their chance. They propped up a barely functioning, senile old man to respond to Republicans' threats, and he failed to do anything to stop what was coming (eg put Trump and the other Jan 6 ringleaders in jail, expand the Supreme Court, DC and PR statehood, literally anything).
Dems just aren't up to the task.
> Because at the end of the day this is what you wanted. The ability to say "Dems won't be fixing this problem" is more important to you than fixing the problem.
This is so far out of line, an appropriate reply would rightly get me removed from HN.
This is a very common human reaction.
When things don't change quickly enough, a more radical approach ends up being taken even though it almost never is the right approach.
It's the same reason why people don't like Java.
It's Old, verbose and stable, but who wants that.
That's why people like Javascript, but at the end of the day, Java is the best.
Stable and boring and slow politics is the good politics. Not this shit that's happening right now.
This has been the Dem strategy for my entire life, yes. You are seeing the outcome of this strategy now. I argue it is not yielding desirable results, and they should try something else.
The world is complicated and things take time. The current HORRIBLE alternative is far worse than the undesirable results from the Dem strategy your entire life.
> Yes, obviously. I'm saying the current situation is partly the result of Dems like Biden not taking action to prevent it.
That statement is tautological (literally everything happens because something didn't prevent it). It's also not consistent with your much less considered verbiage above that somehow this was "all (not partly) on Democrats".
> It's also not consistent with your much less considered verbiage above that somehow this was "all (not partly) on Democrats".
I didn't say that. You should reply to what I am actually saying, not whatever quotes you made up.
> That statement is tautological (literally everything happens because something didn't prevent it).
One of the jobs of a politician is to protect the country from its enemies. Dems failed to do that, despite ample warning and opportunity. This demonstrates what I said: they are not up to the task of rescuing the US.
> I argue it is not yielding desirable results, and they should try something else.
You actually aren't arguing that. You're just saying the first bit. You need to detail "something else", otherwise you're just throwing bombs with no value to anything except your ego.
I listed three concrete actions Dems could have taken or attempted, and didn't. You should try actually reading the posts you're responding to. You're angry at someone who isn't me.
> a more radical approach ends up being taken even though it almost never is the right approach.
To be clearer: a more radical approach is being taken. And some people on the left genuinely prefer the situation to a Harris administration. There was never a constituency for... whatever it is the current argument is demanding[1]. It wasn't on the menu, so the next best thing is humiliation for the other members of the coalition.
[1] The fact that the framing is "Biden bad" and not "Biden should have X" is telling!
Dems had their chance. They propped up a barely functioning, senile old man to respond to Republicans' threats, and he failed to do anything to stop what was coming (eg put Trump and the other Jan 6 ringleaders in jail, expand the Supreme Court, DC and PR statehood, literally anything).
Dems just aren't up to the task.
> Because at the end of the day this is what you wanted. The ability to say "Dems won't be fixing this problem" is more important to you than fixing the problem.
This is so far out of line, an appropriate reply would rightly get me removed from HN.