It’s liberals suddenly flipping to think the is the US is the bad guy now like they did in 2016 and showing how ignorant they are of US actions abroad for literally decades.

Or maybe now they’re worried because they think the things they’re fine with happening to brown people might creep over into affecting white Europeans negatively, 'cos it sure hasn’t occured to them the genocide we were already endorsing for the past year.

Hey guys, look at this dipshit, drawing irrelevant distinctions and pointlessly trying to police other peoples language because they think the only reason others would use those terms is because they’re “edgy and transgressive”.

Tell me, where on the fascism to nazism meter is mass deportations, muslim bans, endorsing far right militias, supporting running over protestors, palling around with white supremacists, and seeking to eradicate trans people from public life? Are we at .49? or is it more like .76? My readings seems to be off. Just so I know I’m not using the incorrect terms so some moron from .world doesn’t get mad and try to incessantly police terms on the internet.

It’s not even clever at this point, maybe it was edgy and transgressive like 7 years ago.

Are you really this childish that you genuinely think the only reason people might suggest Trump is a fascist is because it was “edgy and transgressive”? Not the fascist rhetoric, increasingly fascist policy and the various fascists he’s willing to work with and support?

Imagine being so gullible that you buy Bari Weiss suddenly being pro worker just to coincidentally present Trump tariffs as a potential saviour for US steel workers if not for the current admin blocking consolidation that also happens to align with what the owners of both clearly want because of the usual promises of “investment” so please just let us buy our competitors.

Not to mention the article is clearly filled with deliberate shit stirring for the union and doesn’t once actually ask or quote union leaders, instead deferring to other random workers that just so happen to repeat and believe Weiss’s thesis for the entire article.

Not sure what happened there.

Log the fuck off.

What you’re saying is relevant if you’re talking about why Texas perhaps should already be blue if it wasn’t gerrymandered.

But democrats saying they’re gonna turn Texas blue wasn’t based on that. It was based on the already gerrymandered Texas, not on the hypothetical non-gerrymandered Texas. And the article highlights specific campaign failures and the inadequacy of the changing demographics argument that contribute to consistently falling short of turning Texas blue even with accounting for gerrymandering.

And? This explanation is not mutually exclusive of campaign failures. Everywhere in the US is gerrymandered. Campaigns are not unaware of this when they campaign.

Maybe Democrats shouldn’t have sent Bill Clinton to talk about how Hamas forced Israel to kill civilians and that’s why you need to not care about Dems facilitating genocide, or maybe Richie Torres could have not spent the last weeks of the campaign feuding with Hasan Piker on Twitter over Israel as he was also in Michigan to speak to Arab and Muslim voters.

I guess we already saw if they made the right choice.