I’m reading his “safe” comment in a bit of a different light. The Harris campaign was playing “safe” politics by ooh rah-ing about the military, guns, and the border. By throwing their full support behind Israel and shouting down and cutting out concerned for the Palestinian people. By running around with Liz Cheney.

Their campaign started off strong. Kamala was brat, Walz was calling Trump and his allies weird and joking about Vance fucking his couch. There was energy but they dropped the ball by switching to the “safe” Democrat campaign book. They didn’t go out to speak to the people where they were at town halls like Walz said in the article, they didn’t have firebrand Walz shining a flashlight on how bizarre Trump’s people are, they didn’t have a message that would excite the people and really shake up a statue quo that was slowly and inexorably draining Americans of their economic prospects. They just played the safe Democrat game of incrementalism and subservience to wealth and power rather than the people.

Obviously Walz didn’t say all this, but I think the “safety” he refers to absolutely refers to Kamala’s campaign adhering too closely to a traditional campaign style that was not going to win them much enthusiastic support.

“Democrats have taken genocide off the agenda” how’s the weather in that fantasy land that you’re living in?

It’s their job to prove to the voters that they’re party is worth voting for. Their actions should be based on the support they want not the support they have.

Oh no he pretends to be balanced to some degree but he’s completely bought into the maga propaganda. He may be a useful idiot, but he’s a useful idiot who is all in 100%. They’re not mischaracterizing him at all.

Bannon is smart enough to know it’s all a means to an end but nobody’s going to him for reassurance. Especially not Musk. Bannon loves shit talking Musk.

Yeah and it’s also a politician’s goal. Do you actually think everyone who wants to reach a lot of people is a scammer? Like there’s no legitimate reason to want to reach as many people as possible? Did your parents drop on your head when you were young?

Because she could probably yell her political messages out of her window and reach more people?

Yeah why is this politician, who clearly finds it important to communicate her messages as widely and effectively as possible, using a massive social media platform which many American voters and basically all, if not all media organizations regularly use to get their information, instead of using some nobody social media platform that almost nobody cares about?!? The only conclusion is she must be a grifter!!!

Why yes I am incapable of thinking about a single subject for more than 5 seconds, why do you ask?

What a catastrophically dumb take. People WERE explaining that freedom of speech only prevents the government from taking action against you based on your speech, and even then that it’s limited. If you missed that then you’re too ignorant to be commenting on the subject.

Calling the phrase fascist is just bafflingly stupid as well. Saying that people are not free from consequences of their speech in NO WAY supports the use of physical force to quell people’s right to participate in politics for the simple act of asking a question. Any interpretation of “freedom of speech isn’t freedom from consequences” that concludes that it means that all speech should be subject to any consequences is embarrassingly brain-dead.

You’re free to be this clueless on a public forum, but you’re not free from being called out for your dumb take. That is a consequence. It doesn’t mean that a big muscly dude can justifiably take your phone and smash it into pieces so you can’t comment anymore.