Oh, I agree. Every time Hillary pops her head up this is what she does, and Obama is only better because he knows how to be subtle.

On the other hand, right wing trolls are also driving this message, and being even more obnoxious than Hillary.

The pattern through all of modern history is one of liberals failing to address rising fascism because socialism is what scares them more. Then the fascists win, the system implodes because fascists are incompetent, maybe a few million people die, then the liberals return to start the cycle over. It's pathetic that liberals can't stop repeating this tragedy over and over again.

And you figure that memes like this might change their minds? Assuming this is actually the biggest problem facing Democrats in this election, shaming voters is not the right strategy.

While I agree this is definitely a big issue

Is it though? Your sampling is limited to friends who you say are no longer "this way". If your sample is sufficient evidence that it was a problem, then it's sufficient evidence that it's no longer a problem.

In reality, polls have shown progressives to be the most reliable voters in the country. Beyond that, they are the most involved in volunteering their time for Democratic campaigns.

There is nothing wrong with getting the message out that voting for Democrats is critical to everything the left might hope to achieve. However, framing the debate in a way that blames the left for the failings of liberal centrists is far more likely to push some people in the wrong direction. It's not just unfair and unproductive, it's anti-productive.

There is a reason that when the Democratic establishment doesn't push this message that right wing trolls like OP do it for them.

Did someone ask all men to apologize for something?

Nex actually was the first to commit an assault, by throwing water on some girls that in all likelihood totally deserved it.

It does appear to be a suicide by intentional overdose of two prescription medications. It seems overwhelmingly likely that the fight/beating contributed, but that doesn't amount to murder.

It's a matter of what ammunition, not ammunition in general. Ukraine uses a quarter of a million artillery shells a month. The US doesn't have facilities to build them that fast because we would never need to use that many. We would absolutely own the sky over both the battlefield and Russia itself, reducing the utility of artillery and increasing it's effectiveness. The benefits of combined arms and force multiplication can't be overstated.

We could very quickly build out capacity to produce the shells Ukraine needs, but it's a problem of economics. Those facilities are expensive, and wouldn't be required long enough to provide suppliers a return on investment. We would have to pay a massive premium on those shells and, this far, there hasn't been the will to do that.

NATO sucks at occupation. (As does everyone) Clashing armies are another matter. A war with Russia would be quick and decisive. The following occupation of Russia would be a quagmire.

How many nukes does the US have?

Saying that foreign agents control your politicians is far more damning of those politicians and your country than it is of the foreign agents. Foreign agents are supposed to try to influence the politicians, and the politicians are supposed to resist that influence. One group is doing their job, and the other isn't.

And then the Democrats feign outrage about foreign interference in US elections. Just like they (rightly) say we have to defeat Trump to save democracy, all while actively rigging the 2024 primary - even canceling it in states like Florida.

Democrats are a far bit better than Republicans, but they are sure doing everything possible to undermine their own messaging.

Housing subsidies raise the overall cost, and the middle class still gets to pay the bill. It has its place for low incomes, but it's counterproductive when done too broadly. I'm definitely in favor of taxing investment real estate though.

If POTUS and and intern represent an iffy power balance, what does an actual power imbalance look like? Even in this post, you are still minimizing his culpability. And sure, you are spot on about those Republicans, but that's irrelevant to the point you responded to.

Yes, the overarching consensus among establishment friendly Democrats has been to completely ignore what we learned about Bill Clinton in that incident. Sure, leave him in office if the Republican option is worse (and they always are), but why is he still an influential member of the Democratic establishment? Why is he still a highly sought after speaker at Democratic party events? And yeah, I actually do recall arguing with his supporters on Reddit about whether this incident was even a stain on his character. Absolute hypocrisy.