Post

There’s no capitulation, he just agrees with Paxton’s politics. He just don’t like the guy, as he should. Even though he’s also a scammer, because he wasn’t saying that before the primary, yeah?

Biden didn’t have an “open border policy” unless you live in GOP bullshit land. Like, are you just memory holing everything he did, which was basically First Trump policy, or did you just ignore it?

Biden's policy of continuing to use Title 42 to use public health as pretext to ban all Asylum for most of his term was in fact far to the right of Trump and Miller 1st term prior to them beginning (illegal) use of title 42 in early 2020 under pretext of Covid.

Congressional committees found of course that Pence and Stepen Miller and trump forced CDC to lie about needing to use Title 42 for public health, they never had any evidence, no one working in public health ever recommended or could proved proof for wanting it.

At this stage if your idea of what ICE should be focused on isn't "what their defence attorneys are going to say to appeal to the mercy of the court", you probably shouldn't be in politics in 2026.

I'll let the historical record demonstrate that I made this exact connection almost half a year ago, when he was demonstrating this pattern over another issue - and I did so without ever stepping on foot on your continent.

YARDCG@yardcg.bsky.social

Three options: 1) Talarico is doing the exact same thing Harris did, and it'll also fail. 2) Talarico is doing the exact same thing Harris did, and it'll succeed because *charisma*. 3) Talarico is doing the exact same thing Harris did, and it'll succeed because race and gender. Take your pick.

A lot of people in the replies mad that I’m criticizing a Dem during an election. Say it with me: “criticizing a Democrat does not mean I want a Republican to win” No, I will not wait until after the election to give my opinion about someone.

For the record, I also thought he sucked for abandoning trans people

John Breen@breen.tech

There’s a problem with people saying politicians have to abandon certain groups in order to win (aside from it being wrong). If they do win, they generally don’t become massive advocates for the people they abandoned. If they can’t stand on principles to win, they won’t govern on those principles

No politician has ever moved firmly left on an issue in office that they campaigned to the right on. It is always 'surprise, I actually don't care about progressive policy' and never 'fuck you conservative freaks, I can finally ditch you to enact real change'

It’s still not good, because if you campaign to the right, you will move the public to the right. It’s the reason the U.S. public has moved to the right; republicans realized they don’t have to pander to the left, but democrats haven’t gotten that memo for pandering to the right.

I think it depends what you are criticising them on. Not doing enough on healthcare, corporate greed, worker protections, cost of living.. sure. Dem border policy woes are largely Republican fear mongering. To agree with it plays into a made-up Republican narrative.

Making the prediction now, if there's a Democrat in the White House again, they'll just keep ICE doing what they're doing now but *agree* with the Republicans that they're deporting "violent criminals." The Republicans will still call them soft, of course.

Harris, vapid weathervane she may be, has never decried extremism in "both parties", she is literally the dem "extremist" talarico is talking about. Get a goddamn grip on reality