We already know that Russian influence and money is all over right leaning PACs. The NRA in particular is almost a wholly owned subsidiary of the Kremlin.

When the grift starts to run dry it's the easiest place to run to in order to get more money.

I don't know how it gets fixed since most of these people are happy to be lied to since it fits their narrative and they would never admit they were duped.

It should also be noted that Dmitri Simes becomes the latest from the Trump 2016 campaign to be indicted in all this.

Yes, but Putin endorsed Kamala, so that offsets it. /s

A lot of countries do what Russia is doing. What makes them different?

Not saying they shouldn't go after illegal activity, but it seems like selective prosecution.

hard to say until we see who they are and what they are charged with

We already know it involved Tenet Media which was Tim Pool, Dave Rubin, Lauren Southern, and Benny Johnson. They're all claiming to not have known a thing but if you are getting paid $100k a video from some mysterious source for under a million YouTube views, you should know something fishy is going on.

It'll be interesting to see how many other right-wing influencers are involved. I have a feeling it's going to be a lot of big names (Tucker probably) because there is no way that field is as profitable as it seems.

It is a matter of how. If they do it through registered lobbyist that have to report where money comes from and how the money is used, then it really isn't the same thing. This is hidden money basically being laundered into the country to unreported accomplices. There is pretty big difference between say a Latin American lobby group and this.

And especially Tim Poole is going to have a hard time denying he couldn't tell who was paying him. "Ukraine is our greatest enemy..."

And I ask: does THIS sound like somebody being paid by Russia to you?! pic.twitter.com/ed3futFNsh

— Brett Meiselas 🇺🇸🦅 (@BMeiselas) September 4, 2024

Poole supposedly has already started cooperating with the feds.

Welcome to bizzaro land....

Liz Cheney is voting for Colin Allred in the U.S. Senate race and Dick Cheney is voting for Kamala Harris, she tells TribFest.

— Matthew Choi (@matthewichoi) September 6, 2024

They're not lobbying though to politicians. They're funding entertainers to make content they thing will be useful.

Just not sure how that is different from what Lachlan Murdoch does. Or when the Saudis do some image laundering through celebrities and athletes.

He goes from being a high school drop out to making $100k/wk posting videos.

I chose the wrong career path.

This is what i think you saw Lathum?


DOJ: Russia Aimed Propaganda at Gamers, Minorities to Swing 2024 Election | WIRED

I would assume that you are correct that almost all developed nations are engaging in some sort of influence/interference with American elections. I would also assume that Russia is engaging in ALL of the sorts of influence/interference with American elections, which is what makes them unique...or at least prioritized.


I also wouldn't be surprised if the scale of their operations means that some of them are just worse at it, easier to catch/trace, and a better return on invested time and effort..

There is nothing unique about what they are doing. Other countries do this openly and we are fine with it. In fact, looking through the indictment, this is a pretty small scale. $10 million to some C-list influencers is a pittance. Heck, Israel spent $14 million in just a single Dem primary.

Like I said, seems like very selective prosecution. When the Saudis pay Phil to say how great the country is, it's legal I guess.

Do we have sanctions on Saudi Arabia that I don't know about? Because that is why this was illegal. Part of the sanctions we put In place after the invasion of Ukraine made it illegal for Russia Today to do business in the US, and they were the ones convertly paying these people. Pretty clear difference.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

I’d bet on Mike Lee and Rand Paul, but people that work for them will likely be the ones to take the fall.

So what's your point? Foreign policy shouldn't be selective? If you're not prosecuting literally the entire developed world then you shouldn't prosecute anybody?

Edit: Grantdawg makes a good point about the sanctions against Russia.

The money laundering charges would work with the sanctions (lol at America caring about Russian money laundering). But the crux of the charges is violating the Foreign Agents Registration Act. Something we very selectively enforce. Again, why aren't those agents for other countries charged?

It's just a giant PR stunt anyway. The 2 charged will never be on American soil and the people who took in millions will never be charged for political reasons. They totally didn't know that it was sketchy to be paid $100k for a video.

My point is the same as it always is on legal matters. The law should apply equally to everyone.

But the sanctions are what made the actions illegal. If you can find the sanctions that SA was breaking and they are not charging them with, then it is selective prosecution. But Russia is not allowed to do this type of business in the United States, hence the indictments. It is not illegal for foreign countries to hire people to promote them.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

FARA has nothing to do with sanctions. You can be charged with a violation for advocating for Canada and not registering.

The Saudi's Private Investment Fund violates FARA every single day.

As for the Foreign Agents Registration Act, the DOJ charges people with that all the time, incuding people acting for SA https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/forme...-foreign-agent

Here is a list of recent cases, including the one versus Sen. Mendez acting for Egypt. https://www.justice.gov/nsd-fara/recent-cases

That's a bold assertion that may be your opinion, but the DOJ disagrees with you and I would guess they have a better grasp of the law than you. If your assertion were true, I'm guessing all those convictions using FARA would have been thrown out by the appellate courts on the basis of selective prosecution, but it seems those courts don't agree with you either.

Those people broke the law and were prosecuted. Nothing wrong with that. The issue is why doesn't the government treat LIV Golf or any of the dozens of advocacy groups for Middle East countries the same way? We all know they are FARA violations but ignore it.

And why aren't any of the people in America charged like the Twitter employees were over the Russian propaganda case? That's about as open and shut a case as you can find.

They do treat LIV the same way. LIV has FARA registered agents, and the DOJ also has them registered under another program that allows foreign companies to lobby for employees and business interest in the US. The DOJ is constantly threatening and working with LIV, it is not like they ignore them. You may not like how they treat them, but that is a far cry from allowing them to commit crimes.

LIV Golf is not registered. They have vehemently opposed it and it's mostly been veiled threats by Congress. A few people who worked for them did register when threats came down, but they were not charged for their illegal activity.

ok, correction they have been registered. They then worked under another registration for foreign companies. The Justice Department constantly is investigating them, and if they break or broke the law they will be charged. What LIV is doing and has done is far from being ignored.

So Trump/Musk say that there are trillions in government spending that they can eliminate without reducing services.

That's amazing!

So . . . why are they keeping it a secret? This would be one of the largest government restructurings of all time. Why not let us know what it is before we vote? That would let us all make an informed choice.

Also, it would destroy Harris, right? Literal trillions of dollars in waste that Trump gets to point to and that she'll have to defend.

And, on the off chance that Trump is confused and Musk is an idiot, it'd be nice to know that before the election, too.

Mark Cuban has always had sort of a Democrat lean, though he has criticized the administration many times on many things. At some point he must have been engaged by the Harris campaign, because he has been really shilling for her more than I have ever seen him campaign for a candidate.

Musk has made it so I will never buy a Tesla product in my life. Im sure theres lots of owners of companies i buy from who donate or support trump in certain ways but the way he has tied himself and bowed to him in the end despite him claiming otherwise. Richest man in the world but just a cuck for Trump in the end.

Publix is making a push into KY with close to a dozen stores opening in the next couple of years. Having lived for over a decade in FL, I'm well aware of Publix; even more so because I went to college at Florida Southern which was basically bankrolled by Publix founders.

I don't know her name, but the main heiress to the Publix fortune is a Trumper who bankrolled a lot of the Stop the Steal lawsuits and other shenanigans in 2020. Putting aside the fact that they are a more expensive Kroger with a much better deli, I will be avoiding Publix when the first one opens in Lexington by year end.

Publix is my go to. The prices are a little higher, but it has better slection, the stores are cleaner than Kroger, and it is the easiest store for me to get into and out of. I don't like the owners politics, but I also don't like the politics of most of the people that pay me.

I get it. But I have a choice, so that's an easy differentiator. In our suburb of Lexington, we have Kroger. We go to Meijer in Lexington to supplement Kroger. Publix would be a choice. Now, if Publix was in our town, we'd likely be going there for the quick trips 2-3 times a week. But it's not, so we can choose to skip it.

Yeah, I'm sure they'll get around to charging them one day. Right after they wrap up that 9/11 investigation and the Saudis involvement. And the manipulation of oil prices to influence American elections.

Face it, the government values the Saudis more than American citizens.

Incredibly funny to put a guy who has made his fortunes off government handouts in charge of finding areas to cut in government.

It makes perfect sense since they'll probably agree on the types of people who shouldn't get government handouts/assistance.

Everything discretionary, non-defense is less than 1 trillion, so the only way you get to trillions in cuts is through SS and Medicare, which Trump has vowed not to cut.

Maybe the pro-abortion Republicans also want to cut defense.

Not that he didn't probably just make it up like so many other things, but often how you get to such numbers is to say 'well, we'll cut 50 billion here, and take credit for that 50 billion every year for the next decade or two since we won't spend it those years either'. That's how a lot of cost and budget projections work in DC, and have for a very long time.

My step father who retired within the last year and started just watching Fox News full time showed up to my son’s soccer game today with a Trump shirt and hat. I asked him if he remembered that time Jesus ordered the borders locked down. It was good times.

The easiest way would be to actually tax rich people although I get that's a non starter.

Looking forward to Tue debate.

Hoping for an entertaining debate. I'm mostly curious how well Kamala will do. I assume she'll do at least okay.

The VP debate is on Oct 1. That should be more interesting just because I've not seen either in action before.

Who is Leon Musk? Elon's adopted brother from Soweto?

In the last 24 hours, Trump wished the Virgin Mary Happy Birthday, pitched Hulk Hogan’s beer, talked about Hannibal Lecter, said he will imprison people he thinks are cheating, called Musk ‘Leon,” forgot Burgum’s name, called Brian ‘Briar,’ Keystone ‘Keystown,’ & Tampon ‘Tampom,’…

— Ron Filipkowski (@RonFilipkowski) September 8, 2024

We have reached the Haitian migrants eating pets in Ohio portion of the simulation...

Don't really understand the strategy of hiding Harris and Walz. They're both really good talkers but they're treating them like Biden still. Especially when polls show they want to know more about Harris.

Hiding them where? Who is hiding them?

Harris, Walz plan flurry of post-debate swing state stops

I'm talking about interviews and appearance in non fundraiser/rally events. Kind of like the strategy Obama had in 2008 and 2012 that worked well. I don't know why they're so scared to have Harris do a bunch of interviews, she's a really good talker.

Kamala’s policy positions.

A New Way Forward - Kamala Harris for President: Official Campaign Website

It’s prob too soon, but would like to know her top 3-5, 100 day type list.

We had a good 4-6 week run, but Harris is clearly coming back to reality. There's going to be no 3 month upward momentum run/trajectory that takes her to victory. She didn't get much of a post-convention bounce, and her numbers are starting to head down.

I suppose things can change in the next 2 months - is the debate really going to matter? - but I feel like I'm watching the air slowly release from a balloon.

I mean im not sure anyone thought she was going to run away with the election but it still seems its ultimately going to be a toss up on the odds of who wins.

They just copy/pasted the Biden policy page it seems.




They did a really bad job at the convention. Not surprising they didn't get a bump. Using the Biden team is going to be her undoing. Weirdest election I can remember with both sides seemingly trying to lose.

This Haitian panic is some racist bullshit.

What is even the point of it? Are they pushing some policy I don't know about? It's such a random thing for them to be talking about.

Another example of how bad the campaign has been. They got so much traction from making their candidates seem normal. It works because Trump and Vance are incredibly weird. But they've shifted away from it because they have the dumbest people alive running the campaign.


They should have Kamala doing the Kelly Clarkson Show and Fallon. Walz should be doing an ESPN podcast talking about football. THIS SHIT IS NOT HARD TO FIGURE OUT! People want to vote for the candidate who they can relate to most.





Not really. She needs to be several points better than she is now to have a real shot st an EC victory. Her numbers never got there and sre now going down.

Some much more favorable state polling for Harris this afternoon than those two Pew and NYT national polls. I think it's important not to get overworked about one or two polls. Let's see how things shake out after the debate.

Does the debate even really matter? FOX News will say how Trump was brilliant and MSNBC will say how great Harris was.

We all know Trump will slur and lie his way through the debate and the media will be their typical "That is just Trump being Trump" with no pushback.

Based on the aftermath of the first debate, I would say it matters.

Normally, debates don't matter much. However, the last debate ended Biden's campaign and with Harris the nominee for such a short amount of time this is going to be her introduction to a lot of voters.

I also think the first debate in 2020 played a role in Trump losing. Like most things with Trump, what's normal goes out the window when he's involved.

I think it matters a lot for Harris because she hasn't done much outside of campaign events. Not many people have heard from her since she became the nominee. And the polls show that a lot of people want to hear from her before making their decision.

She doesn't have to have a bunch of witty zingers, she just has to appear normal next to Trump, which shouldn't be hard to do.

But my point is that it doesn't matter how normal she looks or how insane Trump is. His behavior is normalized at this point and whitewashed by the media who want him to win.

The forum he did with the NY economics club should have been enough to put him in a home for good and it wasn't even covered outside of the Aaron Ruppars of the world.

I'm watching the most fascinating dynamic play out in my (very) red rural community right now. It's come to light that we have a planning/zoning meeting coming up next month to finalize a UDO ("Unified Development Ordinance") that's been in the works for like 4 years. The reason we've been working on a UDO/new comprehensive plan seems to be that we hadn't updated ordinances or filed a plan with the state in so long that we were facing pending litigation over our out-of-date ordinances. (Who might be suing us isn't something I can seem to figure out...but anyway, that's why we started adopting this UDO.) Apparently there have been public meetings and committees and all of the usual sorts of things that lead up to stuff like this.

Anyway, so someone recently figured out that as part of the UDO, anyone who lives in the rural county whose property isn't zoned as agricultural is only allowed to have 1 chicken per 1,000 square feet of property. And then it turns out that due to tax advantages, a bunch of historically agricultural parcels were re-zoned as residential (no matter how far out in the sticks they are) because that meant the seller could parcel the property into smaller lots and make more money. Nothing nefarious there, as far as I can tell.

As you can imagine, a bunch of these rural folks who have acre lots and chickens are losing their shit over it. I'd be annoyed, too.

Except, in a county where literally all but one of our town and county level elected officials are Republicans (and our lone Democrat -- who's my neighbor -- would be considered a centrist Republican in most of the Midwest), the county council folks are going on the record as saying this is a Democrat initiative to steal our rights to have chickens and use our property the way we always have.

How do they connect those dots?

The county next to us the home of Indiana University. It's easily the bluest county in Indiana. Apparently we hired the same company to develop our UDO that the neighboring county did for theirs. I'm literally seeing local politicians go on the record saying, "If we'd have known what we were voting for, we never would have voted for it." -- all while blaming it on liberal shenanigans. And best I can tell, all we've got here is a situation where we copied a neighboring county's homework and now we're shocked that we're getting the same grade.

I don't even know what to do with it, honestly. (I live in town rather than in the county, and we haven't been able to have chickens for 40+ years by ordinance, so I've got no dog in this fight...except that uber-liberal Bloomington a county over...well, they can have chickens in town. But whatever. I understand if we don't want to clog up our local small claims court with suits over dog-on-chicken violence like the rich neighboring counties can afford.)

I don't get why they can't just say, "Hey, you know what? When we were reading through this plan we paid a 3rd party to help us develop, we didn't consider some of the things that are coming up now. Fortunately, we've still got time to have some public meetings and think it over a little more before we have the final vote." Instead, we're blaming the 12% of our population that votes Democrat -- and some other nefarious-but-unnamed big money Democrat interests for trying to steal our way of life out from under us...and isn't it a good thing that we caught them in time?!

(And then I talk to some local guys who aren't politicians, but keep their fingers on local politics/economic development stuff, and of course it turns out that the plan is really being pushed by folks at the commissioner level who have their own development interests in some of the key property areas covered by this plan. They're all Republicans, of course, but they're more businessmen-who-do-politics more than anything else. In a rural Indiana county, the R or D don't really mean much. Then it all makes sense, given that we've had at least three county commissioners in the last five years who ended up in jail for various corruption-related charges.)

But I guess this is just how the game is played?

Yup, you got to blame the other team for anything unpopular. I wish we had that ordnance around here. Having chickens has become trendy, and my neighbors rooster is annoying.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

I raised chickens long enough in rural settings that I got used to having to spend a few evenings a summer sitting on my back porch and picking off raccoons and opossums with a .22 -- because it didn't matter how high I built my fences, nature always found a way over (or under).

Chickens in un-fenced town lots just seems like a recipe for disaster. It's one of those ordinances that, given how rural my community is generally, had come to make a great deal of sense by everyone involved once it was passed. I was talking about it one day with my neighbor lady (who's like 90 years old. She's lived in the same house since she was in second grade). She said that the problem wasn't really with the chickens, but the fact that where you have chickens, you end up with raccoons and opossums and foxes who show up to eat the chickens...and get up to all the sorts of trashcan-banditry that raccoons and opossums and foxes tend to get up to. (Thankfully, though, not coyotes. Our town's infrastructure couldn't handle all of the TNT that comes with coyotes.)

So in her view, the chicken ordinance is really an anti-raccoon ordinance.

There's been dozens of bands that are mad that Trump is using their songs at his campaign events. But this is the first that I heard of actually filing a lawsuit.


The White Stripes Sue Trump For Using 'Seven Nation Army'

Just straight racism. Hard to count the number of prominent right wing folks that have made it clear the problem isn't illegal immigration because the Haitians are legal. They just want America to be whites only.

You can tell the panic setting in for Dems when they start blaming everyone else for their failures.

Nothing is normalized. He's incredibly unpopular. Most Republican candidates are getting trounced in swing states. It's not the medias job to be the campaign for Harris.

Good thing FL state line is just 4 hours away!

Harris is a proponent also

Looks like win-lose-or-draw, there'll likely be more legalization in the future.

I have an account with a house that is in a cul-de-sac, and there are chickens that wander around outside their house. I asked the owner about them, and she said they aren't really theirs but they sort of are. The previous owners had chickens, and when they sold the house they just let them go into the woods behind the house. Three years later, a group of chickens came out of the woods and just started hanging out around their house. They figure eventually the foxes, hawks or coyotes (which we definitely have) would kill them off, but some how that group of chickens thrive on completely wild and unprotected.

The prey become the hunters, those are some predaxtor level chickens right there

Ice cold watermelon keeps my good girls cool. pic.twitter.com/511snOcYzm

— Heather Thomas (@HeatherThomasAF) September 10, 2024

So when we get 4 years of neo-fascism, whose fault will it be? The party who ran on normality, or all the disgruntled leftists who refused to vote for them due to certain issues that the GOP is much, much worse on?

Interesting to see people who claim to hate Trump, yet refuse to vote for the other candidate. "Anti-"fa I guess.

I was under the impression that the playbook was to elect D and then push for positive change via activism. I guess we're going back to "complain the Democrats aren't progressive enough, and just accept a Republican government that we hate instead".

Oh well, I guess. I'm sure there are a ton of party heads who wish the GOP was in power right now, so that the Democrats could pretend to be against what's happening in Gaza for fundraising purposes. Still, I don't understand why we're willing to accept a worse government that will make 0 progress on any meaningful issues we claim to care about (labor, environment, human rights, etc.) just to prove a point.

The people who ran a shitty candidate who couldn't convince enough people to vote for them over one of the most unpopular political candidates of all time.

Ahh, we're back to the "Democrats are all shitty" part of the album.

I mean if you can't beat Donald Trump in an election, you're an atrocious candidate. Dems do have a lot of good candidate who are up like double digits in their Senate races.

The curse of the extreme left seems to be they are too stupid to have any understanding of how the world works. Sometimes the lesser of two evils is the best choice. Trump and the R's are ever grateful that the left doesn't understand this simple truth.

You can click any random page in this thread and Rainmaker is saying the same thing regardless. Deja vu every page.

The "extreme left" that makes up 75% of your party.

The same idiots that thought Biden should stay in the race are going to tell everyone that Harris is doing well.

Another masterful gambit. Instead of inviting a normal person who maybe almost died because they couldn't get an abortion be your guest, they're going to invite Scaramucci to impress a few friends at MSNBC.

Not a serious campaign.




Could go through a dozen candidates and I bet the message would remain the same, yes.

And...perhaps much to our consternation, Trump isn't as unpopular as we'd like? I mean, he may be and most of this may be spin (again, media needs a horse race, needs candidates to be pulled back to the middle). But perhaps too many are just like "eh, whatever."

(Somehow with not a lot of actual evidence they still seem to think he is an economic genius, after all.)

If I see another national news report interviewing someone in each column (for Trump, against Trump, undecided) and hear the words "smart businessman" again, I'm going to scream. The guy started well-off and has failed up. I don't know how people think he's some business genius. Because his name is on a bunch of tall buildings? A lot of his failings have been public, too, and came well before he was a political cause. It's weird.

I, too, think that [political candidate] should be [making better choices] based on [what I, personally, want them to do] and if they end up losing, then I will be sure to remind you that I said months before the election that they should do better.

If Harris loses, you'll hear nothing but complaints against progressives, Hispanics, Blacks, Muslims, poor people, Russians, Chinese, Iran, college students, the media, and whatever other excuses they line up. It's never their fault that they lose, it's everyone else's fault. Just ask Hillary.

I think Harris is running a dumb campaign (as evident by the ticket splitting) but I understand I'm not the target demographic she's aiming for. Candidates are responsible for the voters they target and how they perform with that strategy. No one else.

1. Trump wins
2. ?
3. Socialist utopia proclaimed

Just gotta figure out that second step.

It's interesting. Recent progressive movements have had mixed results, at best. The fact that progressives refuse to compromise combined the lack of centralized leadership has seen most of these die out without achieving their goals. Some have had some success at creating dialogue and minor change, but I'm not sure any have achieved their primary goal. They've also done such a poor job at messaging that the right has been able to shape the narrative on each movement while progressives focus on attacking dems.

Harris: Rights, middle class tax cut, allies
Trump: Mass bloodshed, raise prices, dictators

MAGA: Mass bloodshed! Yay!
Swing voters: Tough call
Constitutional conservatives: I don't love it, but I'm on board
Leftists: They're the same
Media: Candidates Offer Policy Alternatives

— Nicholas Grossman (@NGrossman81) September 10, 2024

Alternatively:

- The electorate is so atrocious that many of them can't intelligently tell the difference.
- There are parts of the platform/other supporters of your party that are so objectionable to important parts of said electorate that they'd rather take what Trump is selling (overlaps with the first concept)

And so on. Candidate being bad is one factor, but it's far from the only one.

Trump should be a bad candidate but he isnt. He absolutely steam rolled everyone else in his party so hes clearly a good candidate to close to half the country.

Almost like both parties are fully controlled by corporate interests who have shut out all progressive policies and have media at their back.

The only leverage progressives have is their vote. They can't buy candidates like Wall Street.

Or Harris wins and nothing changes because they have nearly identical economic and foreign policy stances. And yes, I'm aware how important that FTC board position is to some of you even if they have no power.

The funniest part is you all acting like Gaza is a big progressive issue. 75% of Democrats want it to end. They want weapons to stop. It's Harris who is taking the extreme position within her party. All she has to do is take the popular position and she'd get all these votes.

Gaza is a bad issue for Dems because it splits the party. I don't agree that there's a simple solution where Dems gain a lot of votes.

And for the millionth time, no they aren't the same and it's way more than an FTC chair. Hoping for Trump to hurt your enemies is just as bad as hoping for Trump to hurt immigrants.

It's always someone else's fault. All they have to do is show up and vote right? If their policies are so popular then it shouldn't matter how much money is being spent.

And the progressive vote doesn't carry any weight when they've shown absolutely no consistency when it comes to showing up at the polls. No one is going to shape policy on a group that may or may not show up when there are other groups that will reliably show up that you can target.

The Missouri Supreme Court has ruled they must keep the abortion rights amendment on the ballot. There are lots of red states with some pretty progressive ballot initiatives going.

There is no split in the party. It's overwhelmingly in support of cutting off weapons and advancing a permanent ceasefire. And not just among Democrats, it's also moderates and swing state voters. It's not even close.

Even if you're willing to overlook a genocide which most of you are, it's just a terrible political decision to support something that most of the country doesn't want. She's the one choosing the unpopular policies.

Show up to what? There was no primary to elect Kamala. Blue MAGA tried to convince us Biden was the only option.

And if money doesn't matter, why do politicians raise so much? Why do the candidate with the most money typically win? You could save the politicians some time by telling them they don't need to raise money.


Then stop crying when they don't vote for your candidate. You don't want their vote, you don't support their policies, so why do you have a fit when they don't vote for your candidate? Go be mad at the Republicans or racists you're trying to cater to who will just vote Trump anyway.

Is this the first election in our nation's history?

I didn't say money doesn't matter, but you seem to think if dems ignored money and just went with progressive policies then they'd win a landslide. Despite your attempts to break everything in politics down to A+B=C, it's never that simple.



I'm about as far left as you can get but the lack of organization, lack of coherent plan, lack of compromise, and inability to see the big picture by progressives on the left is frustrating. Constantly shooting themselves in the foot because they're desperate to be right and punish everyone that doesn't see things exactly as they do. It's a variation of MAGA in that respect.

And stop crying when non-progressive candidates or presidents, that are still running one of the most left leaning administrations or campaigns in our nation's history, aren't jumping through all of your hoops to maybe get your vote.

No one should compromise on genocide. And the plan is very coherent. Stop sending weapons to a far-right ethnostate that is committing a genocide. It's not that complicated.

Liberals don't understand the position because they don't really stand for anything and don't view Muslims as people. They don't understand that a large number of people find genocide to be repulsive.


Edit: Sorry, liberals care about Muslims when a Republican is in office. We'll be on the same side of this argument in a few months if Trump wins. So don't get too worked up about it.