Then they had a vote and failed to pass it. But they didn't just quietly ignore the campaign.

Except Democrats did try to pass $15 after the last election. It didn't work and a bunch of the worst ones defected, but it wasn't just quietly forgotten.

Well, 85-90% of them.

He didn’t say we shouldn’t try something just that this might not be the best implementation.

He didn't really say anything, you're just hypothesizing a substantive argument from a low effort pessimistic gripe.

A mugging is profitable for one of the parties, it doesn't make the entirety of the mugging a profitable endeavor. Whether something is profitable depends on what level you're measuring profitability for.

There's no such thing as "financial innovation". There's just novel ways to fleece people of their money and dodge regulations. Just because there are some winners in a pyramid scheme doesn't mean the scheme itself is profitable.

I legit had to check whether this was The Onion. This is such an absurd thing to announce it seems like a parody of their actions.

There's no hypocrisy in saying worse things are worse. That's not a double standard. Bigotry isn't an "opinion" and assholes of any stripe are better than people who engage in it. A lot of the people talking to Monk were assholes (that the majority agreed with), but I don't get the impression you wish moderation had been stricter on them.

Genocide denialism and bigotry are WAY worse than just being uncivil. I'm fine with a chamber that doesn't allow bigotry. If you think that makes it left-leaning, that says a lot more about the right than "free speech".

Yeah, there's a bit of spiderman-meme going on with this. They were a spammer and the duplicated posts certainly raise some authenticity questions, but it seems like the people citing their posting as obvious incivility were upset that they responded to their own antagonism with a dismissive lack of engagement.

The only other "trolling" they did just seemed to be being anti-Democratic when a lot of people don't like that and think it requires response. It's hard to imagine how someone could express those (presumed) views in a way that wouldn't be considered trolling by them. If this was /c/democrats, that could definitely be considered trolling, but /c/politics isn't organized as a fan club.

The response here is not about whether their behavior was socially acceptable, but whether it was an indication of a fake account being run by multiple people or a script or something.

I'm personally suspicious due to all those cut and pasted replies, but I suppose it's possible that's just an indication of obsession as well. I've saved text for a comment reply before, but it was because the text had a lot of citations and I was tired of refinding them each time. There doesn't seem to be a lot of reason to save and repeat "I don't have to explain anything to you. Thanks!"

Thank you. Saw that it was an additional link in this post (not a link from the statement) right after I posted, but I didn't delete quickly enough.

What fact sheet? I don't see anything linked from that page.

I don't trust it because there's no believable plan to make it commercially viable, so it's just going to end up defunct or enshittified. Mastodon is up front, it's a volunteer service that you can either pay for or roll the dice on the instance staying up. And there's a built-in way to move on when one goes down.

BlueSky is a B-corp, which theoretically means they can say their mission takes priority if sued by an investor in court, but doesn't in any way require them to make it the primary goal, and the reality of funding and money and investors means that's almost certainly not going to happen.

Good on them, but man, how did this not happen earlier? Seems like something that you could just spend a moderate amount of campaign funds on. There was a good wave of Project 2025 awareness going around social media a month or so ago. It's so late to do it now.

"Conversion therapy" is definitely not the phrase you were looking for.

And notably the first one does "gain extra votes". And those voters who like rather than just accept their most closely aligned candidates will talk to other people in their orbit to get them out to vote. The votes to gain aren't just a few clueless people in the center.

Yeah, you might be able to pull that off, but you'd have to really deftly manage to be both unsettling enough to make less extreme Republicans exasperated with Trump while not being so obviously bad at outreach that someone calls the campaign to complain. Though the truth is so out there there's a lot of room for just being "passionately offputting" where a short-staffed operation might just assume you need a reminder about the script.

LOL, you can actually search my history for 'Jill Stein' to know what I think of her. Your tagging is extremely dumb.

Their lists are going to be targeted at likely Republicans, so they wouldn't have much value to Harris. Apparently there's GPS logging, so you either fake that or maybe can find some Democratic houses in the same neighborhood.