lol what a peculiar fella. Have a good day.

lol no fucking shit? This is a meta-discussion. I didn’t know I was talking to a Trump supporter. Thought we could discuss like adults, but clearly not.

Is that real world enough for you?

So, your plan is to waste debate time and call yourself a Socialist.

No. That is a mischaracterization and oversimplification of what I wrote (like how did you get that from my second paragraph?). I’m already going to be called a socialist; and until the word and others like it are unpacked, they will always be used to fearmonger. Best to address it head-on and take away the power to demonize. I mean just see how many times Mamdani was asked about it during his latest interviews, including with NPR. You have to confront it because it’s a curiosity with the unknown for so many people.

At its core, you must rewire the literal circuitry of people’s brains to link policies -> socialism, or better yet, Nordic model. But if you don’t strongly link these policies to a ideological package, people will feel adrift. It’s why political parties are so attractive. People like pigeon-holing things. Granted, I would also say that I am not a socialist, but a social democrat and strong advocate of a mixed Nordic Model economy— which itself is overwhelmingly more palatable for swing-voters, and even some Trump supporters I’ve talked with.

Why not do something like say “This is what Ike backed back when he was President. Are you calling Ike a Communist?”

I’m open to saying that; but neither is that mutually-exclusive to what I intended to say. And if it was Trump I’m debating, he probably would say “yes, that Ike was a communist” or “no Ike couldn’t be a commie, he was a Republican!” And then ramble on incoherently about cats & dogs.

No doubt, you need quick-witted quips back in debates that go on the attack, I agree. In fairness my response is probably better suited for a town hall or interview.

As far as my decision-making on that would go, I think it would depend on if the actual electorate is believing that mischaracterization, and if I have access to actually respond directly to those people or not.

In a debate for instance, I’d aim to hand-wave that away in dismissal but then pivot and say, "let’s talk about what I really envision for our country and you can tell me if that sounds good to you…[explains]… And so for these great things, you’ll probably end up asking, “but how will we pay for it? [explains ROI, our excess costs now, the amount of wealth of the billionaire class and corporate coffers, etc.]”

If after that the debate moderator or opponent continues to push hard on, “but are you a socialist. Are you a communist!?” I’d take that as an invitation to say explain the differences and how the happiest countries of the world are properly mixed economies between the spectrum of socialism to laissez-faire capitalism.

I understand what you’re saying. Unfortunately the amount of right-wing propaganda out there will label any real challenger as being socialist whether that’s Mamdani or the “radical marxist socialist commie” that was… Kamala Harris?

So progressives must decide whether they hide from the term, enabling the fearmongering, or openly embracing it to show there is nothing wrong with it.

Second to that, I feel they should be pivoting the questions not just to policy but to definitionally explain the notion of socialism, democratic socialism, and social democracies; how in reality — as in actual, realized, tangible results, not utopian fantasies — some of the happiest and most successful countries by the data are ones who embraced a properly mixed economy; that is, social democracies or the Nordic Model.

I recently had what was maybe one of my biggest wins in a conversation with a maga by explaining it this way. They’re so damn confused and believe all trade and bartering, all markets, and any scale of monetary income will vanish. That big bad guv’mint isn’t necessarily so bad when it’s protected from outsized corporate and billionaire power and firmly in the hands Of the People.

This is neither sustainable for Russia nor does anything but further galvanize Ukrainians against the Russian terrorist invader.

They clearly learned nothing from London stoicism.

One underestimates the power and scope of right-wing propaganda, and especially how it taps into machismo idolization, sadly.

Remember that these are the cultists who look at daily weather to disprove climate change. Recognizing overall trends is not their strongsuit.

I assume embarrassment on the world stage helped move this along given the Olympics?

The problem is that last one:

The vast majority of Americans (80%) support the U.S. government’s deportation of migrants without permanent legal status who have been convicted of a violent crime.

How far can “violent” and “conviction” be stretched in order to justify wrongful deportations?

If I was religious I would definitely think he was the devil quoting scripture.

I mean even men hate men at times; this male here would much prefer a female candidate so it slices both ways.

Reality remains: true bigots; trust sexists were only ever voting conservative, regardless if it was Obama, Biden, or a female like Harris or AOC. So that alone is a non-starter.

Buddy, I was just adding context and it seems you took it personally or something. Yous aid alongside and I clarified that Sanders was performing better. Just facts. That’s all.

Quaint deflection.

a third of voters today say they are not ready for a female president.

Now intersect that with actual reachable swing-voters and Democrats.

Like I said: that tracks for core dyed-in-the-wool MAGA trash that we will never win nor want beneath our banner.

Let’s not make Faustian bargains, shall we?

Edit: Also, your facts are just incorrect, as well as interpretation:

a third of voters today say they are not ready for a female president.

• 23% is not 33%.
• 57% say America is “ready” and 20% were “not sure”
• Answering the question whether the rest of America is “ready” is not answering whether you believe a woman could be President.

To make it even more clear for you: https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/madame-president-changing-attitudes-about-woman-president

Public willingness to vote for a woman

In 1937, the first time the public was asked by Gallup about its willingness to vote for a female president, the question included the caveat “if she were qualified in every other respect.” Gallup removed that phrase, with its implications, and tried a new version in 1945, asking, “If the party whose candidate you most often support nominated a woman for President of the United States, would you vote for her if she seemed best qualified for the job?” The results remained the same, with about one-third saying yes.

In 1948, the country was split on a new version of this question, which identified the woman candidate as qualified, but not “best” qualified. The final wording became settled in 1958 and has been asked repeatedly since. Large gains were made over the 1970’s and the proportion answering yes has continued to rise, reaching 95% in the most recent poll.

Americans may say they are willing to vote for a woman, but when asked to assess the willingness of others, people have not been as optimistic about women’s chances of winning the presidency. In 1984, when NBC asked likely voters if they were ready to elect a woman president, only 17% said yes. Substantial shares of the population have remained skeptical, though the most recent poll found the lowest proportion who believe the country is not yet ready.

She polled among the general population alongside Bernie Sanders.

If Sanders outperforms Hillary with the general population against their competitor, then they are not “alongside” — Sanders is, in fact, ahead.

Word definitions matter!

Instead of being a gatekeeping sexist, I’m going to continue to reiterate (for lack of evidence and also because it’s the right thing) that sex / gender of the candidate does not matter in the slightest, and the only thing that matters are their policies, their authenticity, and their charisma — male, or female.

Also because there hasn’t been a lick of evidence to suggest Harris lost because she’s a woman. Also because, as I pointed out and you conveniently ignored: All actual sexists were never reachable votes for Democrats in the first place.

We don’t need them, and we don’t fucking want them.

I think it’s hilarious that if we put Tim Kaine or Biden himself (who was losing by a larger margin than Harris in polling) in, they would’ve lost just the same if not more so… Yet you wouldn’t be here saying, “Golly gee-wizz, I think people are sexist and tired of old white men! I mean, the majority registered voters ARE women after all!” — Therein revealing one’s own gatekeeping sexist dogma.

Unlike you I imagine, I actually door-kncoked on GOP and Independent households so yes, dare I say I’ve gone outside while in a battleground state no less.

I say again because there has been no evidence provided to the contrary: There is no evidence Harris lost because she was a woman. Put another way, if we placed Biden in her position or if we placed an identical copy of Harris as a male, she too would’ve lost for a multitude of factors beyond the fact she was a woman (again, because no actual sexist fuck was reachable in the first place for Democrats and never are).

Actually Bernie Sanders was outperforming Hillary Clinton in head-to-head matchups against Trump poll after poll.