@M3Writer.bsky.social

@DropSiteNews Sarah Longwell and the Bulwark Neocons were celebrating infiltrating and taking over the Democratic party a week before the 2024 election. Pursuing their approval is what caused Kamala Harris to lose.

Anyone who listened to this fair, thorough and nuanced discussion on the Bulwark knows that @SarahLongwell25 cares much more about the survival of democracy and the Democratic Party than herself. Listen for yourself instead of taking the bait.

@DropSiteNews Sarah Longwell and the Bulwark Neocons were celebrating infiltrating and taking over the Democratic party a week before the 2024 election. Pursuing their approval is what caused Kamala Harris to lose.

Look, the dumbest thing about all this is that I didn’t and don’t care about Piker. Piker never comes up in focus groups with voters as someone they’re following—the way a Rogan or Tucker or Candance does. I don’t think he’s singularly making an impact on politics in any way commensurate with the attention he’s getting. But I care about Tim. I agreed with @Timodc’s original point that using Piker as a litmus test is dumb. Calling up Jon Ossoff to ask what he thinks about Piker is dumb. It is an unnecessary distraction. But I felt like Tim’s discussion of Piker was too dismissive of some of Pikers more toxic positions. And that was the part I wanted to react to. There’s nothing I can do about the fact that the internet distortion field has overtaken the whole thing. And that people are debating my views in a way that is totally divorced from my actual, very-well documented views. That’s just part of what happens when doing this work. The only thing I can do is keep saying what I actually believe. And what I hear voters saying they believe. But politicians can reach voters who are angry about the Iran war and even about America’s relationship to Israel without going on the stream of a guy who said America deserved 9/11. But, it’s also no doubt true that he’s being elevated by the whole conversation and the right answer to questions about him should probably be “Piker, who?” Because that’s what most voters would say if you asked them.

Look, the dumbest thing about all this is that I didn’t and don’t care about Piker. Piker never comes up in focus groups with voters as someone they’re following—the way a Rogan or Tucker or Candance does. I don’t think he’s singularly making an impact on politics in any way commensurate with the attention he’s getting. But I care about Tim. I agreed with @Timodc’s original point that using Piker as a litmus test is dumb. Calling up Jon Ossoff to ask what he thinks about Piker is dumb. It is an unnecessary distraction. But I felt like Tim’s discussion of Piker was too dismissive of some of Pikers more toxic positions. And that was the part I wanted to react to. There’s nothing I can do about the fact that the internet distortion field has overtaken the whole thing. And that people are debating my views in a way that is totally divorced from my actual, very-well documented views. That’s just part of what happens when doing this work. The only thing I can do is keep saying what I actually believe. And what I hear voters saying they believe. But politicians can reach voters who are angry about the Iran war and even about America’s relationship to Israel without going on the stream of a guy who said America deserved 9/11. But, it’s also no doubt true that he’s being elevated by the whole conversation and the right answer to questions about him should probably be “Piker, who?” Because that’s what most voters would say if you asked them.

@DropSiteNews Sarah Longwell and the Bulwark Neocons were celebrating infiltrating and taking over the Democratic party a week before the 2024 election. Pursuing their approval is what caused Kamala Harris to lose.

@M3Writer @wideofthepost Nice goal shifting. At least you acknowledge Fetterman wasn’t the preferred candidate of the establishment. He was yours.