744
DHS Agents Arrest Man by Pretending to Be Stranded Motorists… A Ploy to Get The “Worst of the Worst” Who are Midwest Nice (fuelarc.com)
submitted 8 months ago by to c/nottheonion@lemmy.world
100 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Honestly, I would fall into this trap. The federal agent genuinely sounds like she is a person having car trouble, this trap would work on me because I guess I too am a fundamentally decent person.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 6 points 8 months ago (11 children)

Depends on who it changes to. If a miracle happens and it’s somehow an actual progressive/left candidate and not just an establishment dem then it could happen. It’s just that, yknow, it depends on getting a progressive elected…

Vote in the primaries and get a progressive candidate on the center stage so we have half a hope these fucks will face actual consequences

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 12 points 8 months ago (10 children)

    Unfortunately the primaries are rigged, and it's legal. We know this because the DNC was sued after 2016 and admitted it in court.

    We're not getting a progressive anywhere near the presidency.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    Damn I didn’t know about that lawsuit. Apparently some Bernie supporters sued the DNC for rigging things in favor of Hillary:

    A pending order from the judge will determine whether the court sides with the DNC, which faced backlash after leaked emails showed CNN allegedly gave the Clinton campaign planned questions ahead of a debate between the former secretary of state, and Sanders, who quickly rose to prominence and popularity among liberals but failed to garner enough votes to secure the Democratic ticket.

    Sounds like they didn’t rig any votes, just didn’t give them a fair race. Which, that’s still bad, but workable. We should still vote in primaries; this just highlights the need to volunteer and make sure people know which candidate is truly the best, even when their own supposed “allies” are working against them

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 14 points 8 months ago*

    Sounds like they didn’t rig any votes, just didn’t give them a fair race

    That's some hair-splitting right there. They were quoted as saying it's their right to hold unfair primaries, in court, which to me is as good as an admission.

    But we know they're rigged. It's why superdelegates were invented, and why Bernie never had a chance despite being immensely more popular than Hillary.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -11 points 8 months ago (6 children)

    You're not getting a progressive because you aren't trying. You can't get enough people to win a popular vote once. DNC doesn't even need to rig anything, the only people who actually do political activism are those "establishment democrats".
    Progressives either don't do shit other than bitching on twitter, or there are so little of them so their effort is in vain. I don't know what is worse. You can say what you want how primaries are "rigged" because delegates don't do what you personally don't want them to do, but fact of the matter is, Bernie also lost the popular vote quite definitively.
    In the history of DNC, there was only one time when delegates didn't chose the same candidate as the people, and that was when Obama lost the popular vote to Clinton by almost 1%.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    You’re not getting a progressive because you aren’t trying.

    L-O-Fucking L.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    The alternative explanation that "you" are trying and failing spectacularly.
    None of that makes me l-o-fucking-l to be honest.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

    Not only wrong, but willfully ignorant. Your point of view is ignoring so many basic facts, two of which are exceedingly important:

    1. You have no power whatsoever at the national level absent a billion-dollar fortune or membership in the Epstein Class.
    2. Our only power is local, and locally, progressives are winning, and it's not just Mamdani.

    Hell, look at my state: deep red Missouri. You probably haven't given it a second thought, but in 2024 we approved state amendments to mandate required paid sick leave, a $15 minimum wage, and legalizing abortion. Kansas City has passed two extensions of its streetcar line in recent years, which is amazing because KC is a car-centric town. (And the streetcar is free.) We even imprisoned a killer cop, one of the few places in the entire country to do so.

    In deep-red Missouri.

    The alternative explanation is that, on top of having to overcome billionaires, we have to deal with brain-dead partisan Democratic voters who think someone is 'electable' because they don't consume any info that isn't fed to them from their moronic, corporate-owned social media feeds or MSNBC, or they ignore how shitty a candidate is because that politician possesses a vagina.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    In the history of DNC, there was only one time when delegates didn’t chose the same candidate as the people, and that was when Obama lost the popular vote to Clinton by almost 1%.

    lol, why is it almost always aggrieved Clinton stans?

    Incidentally, the Clinton bit is such a stretch it’s fair to call it a lie.

    https://www.factcheck.org/2008/06/clinton-and-the-popular-vote/

    Q: Did Clinton win the popular vote?

    A: Obama won more votes unless you count Michigan, where he wasn’t on the ballot.

    The fact there was a mere 1% difference in the votes she received despite her getting an entire extra state compared to him shows how wildly popular he was. Ignoring that would have been choosing a different candidate than the people were choosing; they didn’t make some incredible decision that paid off because they know better than their voters, they just knew what would have happened if both their names had been on that ballot and knew which way the wind was blowing.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    It's deeply weird to me that you assumed I stan Clinton when I just point out this deeply funny statistic. The fact that you assumed I stan her might say something about your motivation and ideas than you care to admit.
    It even prevented you from understanding why I brought up this and what it means for the "everything is rigged, nothing we do matters, better not to do anything" side of this argument.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago*

    when I just point out this deeply funny statistic

    Clinton being unable to gain more than a 1% lead on Obama despite having an entire extra state to count votes from is indeed deeply funny, but not for the reason you think it is.

    If you can’t make your point without trotting out a line aggrieved Clinton stans have been carrying around nearly 20 years, maybe you should stop doing that. Especially since it undermines the point you’re trying to make: the DNC choosing anyone other than Obama would have been an actual example of them putting their fingers on the scale.

    Or you could just stew about how good you are at communicating and how bad everyone else is at understanding, seems to be working well so far.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent