So just so we’re clear here, you acknowledge that it is “corporate fuckheads” who run the DNC, but insist they aren’t to blame for losing 14m votes.
In fact, it’s actually my fault, your neighbor’s fault, and anyone of voting age who isn’t employed by the DNC.
Again, the Democratic party lost this election, not me, or any other voter.
So while you identified a potential future problem, it feels like you’ve misdiagnosed who’s to blame for that possibility.
It’s quite pathetic how so many of these stories have top comments that all blame voters for the decades of compound failures by the Democratic party.
You have it backwards my friend, voters cannot fail the party. It’s the party’s job to win voters, but instead, they shed 14 million voters over the last election.
Remind me, how many users are on Lemmy?
Can you think of any other types of people who might be financially able to volunteer their time here…?
Maybe those who have a vested interest in any number of outcomes that may result from their work there…?
Maybe you don’t remember Jeff Sessions.
Matt Gaetz could bring another dozen or so, 17 year girls across state lines, and still not reach the scale of evil contained within Trump’s former OG AG Keebler.
That’s my point. The best you can hope for is someone who also dipshit maxes, hard.
Let’s be real, he cleared the bar with this one.
Don’t forget, the bar was set at Jeff Sessions, and it was even lowered to the doofus who ran the patent protection scam company.
Look, he’s not going appoint anyone that isn’t awful. The most you can hope for, the best outcome, is favourable funny > evil mix.
I’m comfortable saying that Matt Gaetz, on the grading curve necessary for Trump appointments, clears that bar. He’s has at worst a 51% funny to 49% evil ratio.
Impressive.
Only one of those words is actually English, and you still managed to use it incorrectly.
Unless it was an extremely misplaced and subtle nod to Alanis Morissette.
Stop trying to police language.
Jokes need only to be judged on if they’re funny, or not.
FEDNA
It is the entire national Democratic party and their gigantic horde of consultants.
People here don’t seem to understand that Trump winning to them, is a preferable outcome to someone like Bernie Sanders ever holding power.
I’m not saying they want Trump in office, I’m saying that Trump in office means they retain their jobs and influence. Both of which are predicated upon keeping their voters trained on the idea that campaigns are only about marketing, and politics is about anything other than how it can directly improve their material conditions.
Imagine a Democratic politician broke through the existing power structures and enacted something like Medicare for All. That is is the biggest threat to their power: an actual FDR Democrat. Someone who takes money and power from the donor class, and uses it to directly improve the material conditions for the rest of us.
Yes, let’s blame the voters for losing the election…
Not the Democratic party or their candidate, because clearly only voters can fail them, they can’t fail us.
Do you find yourself looking for opinions on him often?
Because I bet you sought them out, you would find that comment to be extremely mild criticism by comparison.
His only two good roles were in Avenue 5 and the episode he did for Party Down.
And by good roles I mean, they both feel like he’s playing an exaggerated version of himself: whiney, self-important, and delusional.
STOP. POSTING. NEWSWEEK.
It is trash and has been for sometime.
Go find this story being run In a credible outlet, and repost.
Oh, and last I saw, pretty much all credible pollsters had this election at a resounding, “heads or tails, pick one”.
Go vote.
You do understand the importance of editors in a newspaper, and their role in crafting headlines for articles…right?
Simply because a student said it, doesn’t mean it should be included in a headline, especially if use misrepresents situation i.e. a battlefield or terrorist attack, and not everyone just shitting their guts out.
Editorial discretion and competence, it has meaning. Or, at least, it should.
Butchering language is an example of slang with a well-established context. But more than that, you’re not going to confuse my use of butchering when it’s discussing the concept of language.
Saying a scene is full of carnage, directly implies it resembles a war zone, mass shooting, or an explosion. Not 100 kids shitting themselves from a foodborne illness outbreak.
What if the headline said “It was an orgy of bodily fluids…”. This is called poor editorial discretion, and while that also could technically be understood to be accurate, it would also be editorial malpractice.
Oh, and lol. Seriously? What makes you think I didn’t spend 90 seconds reading that article about the mass food poisoning event…?
So what? Are you saying that all slang is appropriate when reporting on real world events? Even if it completely changes the context of the article to mean something entirely different?
This is The Guardian, not a blog post.
Any editor that uses the word “slammed” in it’s current cliche slang context, should be immediately fired.
The fact that you’re defending that overwrought example of the degeneration of our media, and moreso, citing it as why this particular butchering of the English language is actually correct, is disheartening.
You can cite all of the other poorly written articles you want, stacking wrongs upon wrongs, won’t make this right.
lol wut