During a Tuesday hearing at the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, the DOJ urged a three-judge panel to issue an emergency stay of a lower court order and allow the Trump administration’s deployment of the California National Guard to continue in Los Angeles — going so far as to argue a president’s federalization of militia can’t be second-guessed by the courts, even if the chief executive mobilized forces from all 50 states and Washington, D.C., simultaneously.
I think you’re arguing with a figment of your own imagination. Nowhere have I said anything about winning at all costs for its own sake. I’m observing that the current dem strategy isn’t a winning one (indisputable), and I’m telling you why. Look, here’s a good example from the last election: people were not feeling good about the economy. Trump has an answer for them. It’s the wrong answer (tariffs and deportations), but he is engaging with a real concern. The democrat answer was “actually you’re wrong, the economy is great, look at the stock market”. They’re stuck, because as the party of the status quo, they can’t propose any radical changes to the system. They don’t want any radical changes to the system. This means that in effect, they aren’t even competing with republicans! I’m asking you to demand that your party compete.
No, I’m arguing with an un-serious person who shifts the goal posts and changes the topic instead of arguing in good faith. I was going to copy and paste a section of you saying lying and propaganda are valid winning strategies, but you seem to be having a hard time keeping up with the conversation, and I’m not interested in debating with disingenuous people.
You can’t paste it because I didn’t say it. I said that you can win by lying. Is that not a fact?
You’re shifting previous statements to work around my arguments instead of directly refutting them. You said this, within the context of unconditionally supporting the people doing it. What am I supposed to take from that other than “the important thing is winning at all costs”? Are you seriously trying to make the argument that you can win by lying, like that’s some sort of new information to anyone in the world anywhere? If so, forgive me for being confused by the sheer stupidity of the argument.
So you do understand part of what I’m saying, but not all of it. Yes, you can win with lies and you can win with the truth. You can also lose with either of them. Whichever way you go, you have to do it convincingly. Trump was convincing in his lies, and won. Kamala wasn’t, and didn’t. Does it do you any good to tell the truth unconvincingly in politics? This isn’t a criticism of truth, it’s a criticism of messaging and perception.