There's a running joke in sitcoms, particularly with B-list characters, where a kid breaks into their house and finds a closet full of the same identical outfit over and over again.

More true for cartoons than sitcoms. Rosanne actually fought with the producers on her show to have her characters reuse outfits. She hated how supposedly working class characters on TV somehow never wore the same outfit twice. She even had some pieces of clothing get handed down to the younger actors when the older ones outgrew them. It's a shame she became a right-wing loon, because she was one of the few people to make a realistic sitcom about working class people (only other one I can think of is Malcolm in the Middle).

Democrats will still blame Stein if they lose, and even though their explicit strategy is to pick off disaffected Republicans, they'll never blame Chase Oliver. It's just like in 2016, when Hillary used the exact same strategy, and they blamed Stein, even though Gary Johnson took home a much higher percentage of the vote in most swing states. They don't care about spoiler candidates; they just want to punch left, especially when they need a scapegoat for a loss.

Well, there also seem to be credible leaks that it'll have some sort of duel screen system, potentially functioning like the DS. It's probably going to be more than just a bigger switch.

They were very amateurish. They were a fake set of emails that were clearly put together in a text editor. The formatting of the dates was inconsistent between emails, and in one screenshot, you could even see the text cursor, indicating the email had just been typed on the user's screen. Apparently, even some Qanon promoters were stepping forward to debunk them. They were covered in the latest QAA podcast.

Do you want ants? Because this is how you get ants.

Good news, everyone!

I've been seeing these headlines my whole life, and the only thing that changes is the amount of time. -- 25 years of data disproves trickle-down economics -- Experts agree, 30 years later, trickle-down doesn't work -- After four decades, trickle-down finally debunked -- Thanks economists, but you really don't need to keep researching this; a lack of evidence isn't the problem.

I read about half of that. Up until the Obama point. I just don't care anymore, dude. You're replying to facts with your opinion. Al Gore was considered a political centrist. I don't care if you don't like the article, or you couldn't get past the pay wall, or you think being environmental made him far-left, it doesn't change reality. I don't care if you've already explained that, "When in office, [Obama] acted left. He ran center relying on hope and yes we can." It's just not true; his platform and his campaign promises were much more progressive than his administration. It's not debatable. You're just wrong.

I don't really care if you read the sources or not. The facts don't change just because you choose to remain ignorant of them, and I'm not reading 18 paragraphs of your unsubstantiated opinions just so you'll click a link. Learn to admit when you're wrong or don't. I can't make this my problem anymore.

Yeah, that's why I did that.

Fair enough, you are correct. Still bullshit to think that all of those voter would automatically go to clinton, but I will delete the bad information.

These numbers are also lies. Trump won PA by 68,735, while Stein got 48,912. It's just misinformation.

Yeah, the numbers in PA are just wrong. Trump beat her by 68K and Stein got 48K. Even if Stein hadn't been on the ballot and every single one of her voters went to Clinton, she still would have lost PA and the Electoral College. This entire post is just a lie.

Honestly, the post should be removed. Misinformation is a violation of Rule 2. Given that the user keeps doing it, a temporary ban is probably in order too, but that's the moderators' call.

They weren't. Check out PA. Trump won by 68K, Stein got 48K, Trump would still take PA, the EC totals would be 280 Trump, 258 Clinton. The whole thing is just a lie.

Cool lie, dude! These numbers are all at least slightly off. In Michigan, Trump won by 11,612, and Stein got 50,700. In Wisconsin, Trump won by 27,257, and Stein got 30,980. Most importantly, in Pennsylvania, Trump won by 68,735, while Stein only got 48,912, meaning even if every Stein voter in this graphic went to Clinton, Clinton still would have lost not only Pennsylvania, but also the Electoral College, with the final total being 280 to 258.

Given that this is at least the second time this user has been caught spreading disinformation through fake infographics, we should all be more skeptical of their posts. They clearly either don't know or don't care about reality.

Your ignorance is stunning. Your entire knowledge of Al Gore is that he was pro-environment, and, "environment = left-wing," but you have no understanding of his role within the Clinton administration, like promoting NAFTA or Welfare reform. I don't even know why this is a debate, as you're just factually wrong; here's the NY Times calling him fiscally conservative in 2000. Here's the LA times reflecting on his centrist platform in 2004. The idea that he ran as a progressive is nonsense.

I have no idea what your point is about the Obama administration. You seem to be saying, yes, all of his policies were progressive, but they don't count because Bush was unpopular. Not sure what the logic is there, but at least you're tacitly admitting you were wrong when you claimed he his campaign was vague, so that's something.

You also seem to think that bringing up people's past policy positions is some kind of dirty trick I'm playing (which would explain why you have such a poor understanding of history), but for the record, yes, Hillary Clinton's 25 year record as a centrist was relevant to her 2016 campaign. I don't know what to tell you, if you have a decades long record as a centrist, then run as a centrist with a centrist running mate, people will think you're a centrist (true of Gore and HRC).

I went back and read the bits I skimmed, and yeah, I was right, you just repeated yourself. Maybe edit yourself a bit, especially when you don't know what you're talking about. But, for the record, your premise is obviously faulty; if you vote for them when they move to the center, the takeaway isn't going to be that it's safe to go to the left, it will be that it's safe to go to the center. But either way, it doesn't matter, because the geriatrics that run the party are so haunted by Regan's legacy that they will never go left, no matter how often they lose trying to gain the center.

Anyway, still very telling that you won't address the fact that Ross Perot played a huge part in the 1992 election, but I'm sure you'd have to Google, "Who is Ross Perot?" first. But thanks for, "today's explanation," really funny stuff!

Bill Clinton: After successive Dem losses Bill figured out "it's the economy stupid", aka center policy, not leftist policy.

Perfect example of being willfully obtuse; 19% of the popular vote went to a third-party millionaire that year, but you're pretending it didn't happen.

Gore: You think Gore was centrist? Lol that's a first for me

I'm sure it is new to you, but yes, he was considered a centrist since his 1988 run. He picked Joe Lieberman as his running mate, did you think that was progressive?

He ran on broad "hope" and "yes we can" and having energy, hoping the ambiguity would be enough considering Bush's disastrous wars.

First off, "Yes we can," was his campaign slogan, but, "Hope," came from artist Shepard Fairey. Second, he actually had very detailed progressive policy proposals and campaign promises, including Universal Healthcare, homeowner bailouts, Wallstreet regulation, codifying Roe, and abolishing warrentless wire taps, and that's just off the top of my head. If you thought his platform was vague, you weren't paying attention.

So what did Hillary learn from the last 6 years of Obama? She learned that the left never shows up.

And then she traveled to 1965 to tell herself to become a college Republican? And then 1992 to tell herself to support her husband's gutting of Welfare? And then to 1996 to call black children, "Super Predators?" She didn't learn anything from Obama. She was always a centrist, and you're just making stuff up to try to craft a narrative.

Biden learned from Hillary that you don't stick your head out left on anything. Not one thing. And he was running against an incumbent, so once again when you do that you run center. And he won.

Biden has been in politics 20 years longer than Clinton, I don't think he was looking for notes from her. And, again, despite being pretty centrist (hawkish, tough on crime, strong labor support, mixed record in segregation because he's 400 years old), he did stick his neck out for the left. The BBB was a huge progressive wishlist, and he's still trying to get some student debt relief.

And what were the results? Lost the House of Representatives for years 3 and 4.

President's usually take a loss in their first midterm after the, "honeymoon," wears off, and in 2022, polling was predicting a huge, "Red Wave," that never happened. The Democrats narrowly lost the House, but the results were generally considered a disappointment for the Republicans.

Anyway, I skimmed the rest of this, and it's not worth going over. It basically seemed like a retread of everything you've already said, and that's mostly ahistorical nonsense tied together into a loose narrative with the confidence and understanding of a freshman that just finished POLI SCI 101. Instead, I'll just leave you with this study from the Pew Research Center that indicates people on either ends of the political spectrum are more likely to vote and donate to campaigns than people moderate views. So, looks like it's the center, not the left, that doesn't show up. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Going to the center is why they are losing. Jimmy Carter was a centrist who tried to distance the party from the New Deal. He was wildly unpopular, which is why Ted Kennedy primaried him from the left. Kennedy lost the primary but Carter lost the presidency. Mondale and Dukakis were both moving to the center as well, and they both failed to beat Regan and Bush, respectively.

Clinton was the only centrist to win, and that probably had more to do with the fact that Ross Perot took a huge portion of the electorate (19%) than anything else. Gore and Kerry were another set of centrist losers, followed by Obama, who was a centrist President but a progressive candidate who won the primary by going to Hillary's left. Hillary was a historic loss, and while Biden is a considered a centrist, he's also very pro-labor, and ran a progressive platform against an incredibly unpopular president.

You're absolutely right about what's happening; the Democrats are going to the center to find voters. But when they go further from the left, it costs them voters, so they go even further towards the right to try to get new votes, which costs them more voters, over and over again in a feedback loop that, frankly, you could only get stuck in by either being completely incompetent or deliberately obtuse. You need to start blaming the party for losing voters, not the voters for being abandoned by the party.

It's the only site with a similar post/comment structure and a large enough user base to be viable, so in that regard, it's the only alternative. Culturally, it's much different. It's far more left-leaning and hasn't fallen victim to the same salf-importance and group-think that Reddit users have. It also doesn't have the same wealth of knowledge Reddit built up over 20 years, though, and it's prone to petty infighting between communities and instances (and even admins).

Ultimately, I prefer it to Reddit, and never feel the urge to go back. I'm not convinced that Federation is a silver bullet for all of social media's ills, but I think Lemmy is an interesting project, and I'm interested in seeing how it develops.

Every headline about this man is either, "Trump unveils proposal for concentration camps," or, "Trump claims he invented waffles, poops pants at PA rally." There's no in between.