I don’t see how this URL is a response, but the site implies a conspiracy while also listing Democrats who “Rarely Rotate”, which seems to betray the whole premise of the conspiracy theory. Isn’t it a more likely explanation that some Democrats simply lean more conservative or vote based on their constituents? I mean, Marie Perez is literally a co-chair of the Blue Dog Coalition and competes in a district that went red in 2024.
The point is theres always just enough who vote with the obvious fascists so the agenda passes. Or just enough who go against the blue team so their agenda fails. Almost like it’s planned opposition. “Look guys, we tried to stop them, oopsies we’re so helpless! How could we know that exactly 3 people in our bloc from the safest blue districts would go against us?”
It’s seemingly every damn time there is a major policy fight. What immediately comes to mind is the last shutdown. Performative at best. The Dems had public support, but then people in safe districts just gave in.
Yet when a progressive runs or has support then the party finds their spine to undermine them.
It’s because “liberals speaking out against her” doesn’t mean anything when she is doing this for Israel. She is criticized by Chuck Schumer, who has stated that he is in his position to “support Israel”.
And a historical account of neoliberal voting records is not a “conspiracy theory”
WWE wrestling was the simplest pageantry that had “heroes” and “heels” and the rubes in the audience think it is all real. These terms are even used when people are on corporate media. People are assigned to be the conservative/liberal “heel”.
There is nothing new about rotating villains, and controlled opposition. Maybe learn something before you start running your ignorant mouth when answers are provided to you.
That doesn’t make any sense though, because the vast majority of politicians condemning her are liberals.
https://rotatingvillains.org/
I don’t see how this URL is a response, but the site implies a conspiracy while also listing Democrats who “Rarely Rotate”, which seems to betray the whole premise of the conspiracy theory. Isn’t it a more likely explanation that some Democrats simply lean more conservative or vote based on their constituents? I mean, Marie Perez is literally a co-chair of the Blue Dog Coalition and competes in a district that went red in 2024.
The point is theres always just enough who vote with the obvious fascists so the agenda passes. Or just enough who go against the blue team so their agenda fails. Almost like it’s planned opposition. “Look guys, we tried to stop them, oopsies we’re so helpless! How could we know that exactly 3 people in our bloc from the safest blue districts would go against us?”
It’s seemingly every damn time there is a major policy fight. What immediately comes to mind is the last shutdown. Performative at best. The Dems had public support, but then people in safe districts just gave in.
Yet when a progressive runs or has support then the party finds their spine to undermine them.
It’s because “liberals speaking out against her” doesn’t mean anything when she is doing this for Israel. She is criticized by Chuck Schumer, who has stated that he is in his position to “support Israel”.
And a historical account of neoliberal voting records is not a “conspiracy theory”
WWE wrestling was the simplest pageantry that had “heroes” and “heels” and the rubes in the audience think it is all real. These terms are even used when people are on corporate media. People are assigned to be the conservative/liberal “heel”.
There is nothing new about rotating villains, and controlled opposition. Maybe learn something before you start running your ignorant mouth when answers are provided to you.
Until they get scratched.
Oh OK.