How to win!

[Kishkumen]

Here is what A.I. has to say about “clean coal.”:

No, there is no such thing as truly "clean coal". While technologies like carbon capture and sulfur scrubbers can reduce emissions from coal-fired power plants, coal combustion inherently produces pollutants and greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide.
Elaboration:
The term "clean coal" is often used to refer to technologies that aim to mitigate the environmental impact of coal burning, such as:
Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS):
This technology involves capturing CO2 emissions from coal-fired power plants and storing them underground.
Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD):
This process removes sulfur dioxide (SO2) from the exhaust gases of coal-fired power plants, reducing acid rain and other pollution.
Electrostatic Precipitators and Fabric Filters:
These technologies are used to capture particulate matter (ash) from the flue gases, reducing air pollution.
While these technologies can reduce the emissions from coal-fired power plants, it's important to note that coal combustion still produces greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, and other pollutants. Additionally, the extraction, processing, and transportation of coal also contribute to environmental impacts.
For these reasons, "clean coal" is often viewed as a misleading term, as it doesn't accurately represent the true environmental impact of coal. Many experts argue that transitioning to renewable energy sources like solar and wind is a more sustainable approach to meeting energy needs.

[Bret Ripley]

You guys believed in the nonsense Russiagate lies and have sh__ your pants everytime at the bogey man the Democrats have set up in order to avoid real populist change that the people want but the donor class fears.

Not that Russiagate has anything to do with the rest of your statement ...

It also depends on what exactly is meant by 'Russiagate,' since the Mueller report found that Russian agents did indeed conspire to hurt Clinton and help Trump and team Trump welcomed that interference. From a Cato Institute article titled "No, 'Russiagate' Wasn't the Hoax That Team Trump Claimed it was":

Yet the idea that the Mueller report exposed Russiagate as a “hoax” rests on a false binary: either Trump and/or his associates actively conspired with Russia, or Trump has been the victim of a “Russia, Russia, Russia” witch hunt. But there is also another scenario: that Trump ran as a Russia-friendly candidate, Russia interfered in the election to help Trump (as the Mueller report very clearly states), and Trump and his cronies were fine with that. And that scenario is not a hoax or a concoction of the Steele dossier.

https://www.cato.org/commentary/no-russ ... ims-it-was

[Kishkumen]

Russians started connecting with Republicans through the NRA, did they not? I also seem to recall that Paul Manafort was in deep with the Russians.

[canpakes]

Here is what A.I. has to say about “clean coal.”:

No, there is no such thing as truly "clean coal". While technologies like carbon capture and sulfur scrubbers can reduce emissions from coal-fired power plants, coal combustion inherently produces pollutants and greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide.
Elaboration:
The term "clean coal" is often used to refer to technologies that aim to mitigate the environmental impact of coal burning, such as:
Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS):
This technology involves capturing CO2 emissions from coal-fired power plants and storing them underground.
Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD):
This process removes sulfur dioxide (SO2) from the exhaust gases of coal-fired power plants, reducing acid rain and other pollution.
Electrostatic Precipitators and Fabric Filters:
These technologies are used to capture particulate matter (ash) from the flue gases, reducing air pollution.
While these technologies can reduce the emissions from coal-fired power plants, it's important to note that coal combustion still produces greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, and other pollutants. Additionally, the extraction, processing, and transportation of coal also contribute to environmental impacts.
For these reasons, "clean coal" is often viewed as a misleading term, as it doesn't accurately represent the true environmental impact of coal. Many experts argue that transitioning to renewable energy sources like solar and wind is a more sustainable approach to meeting energy needs.

Next, Ceeboo can tell me if the Trump Administration would even keep in place any of the processing requirements and regulations you’ve listed as they try to push coal into the marketplace and into your lungs.

Lol. I don’t think so. Because populists apparently love coal pollution.

[canpakes]

Russians started connecting with Republicans through the NRA, did they not? I also seem to recall that Paul Manafort was in deep with the Russians.

Trump has already admitted that his own son met with Russians in a hotel room at Trump Tower to try to ‘dig up dirt’ on Clinton.

But, “tHe sToRiEs aBoUt mEeTiNg wItH rUsSiAnS aRe fAkE ..!!

https://www.npr.org/2018/08/06/63586039 ... on-clinton

[canpakes]

and democracy is at stake

It seems weird that anyone needs to be reminded that he orchestrated a plan to ignore the results of an election. Literally. You may have seen something about it -- it was in all the papers for a while.

No, Bret. That was disinformation. And it doesn’t matter anyway, because both sides do it. So just ignore that completely unique and tragic moment in American history in which a petulant, sore-loser narcissist lied compulsively for months about an imagined rigged election and then held a rally to whip up a march on and into the Capitol by immature yet dangerous sycophants in order to ‘take back’ what he claimed was ‘stolen’ (or stollen, depending on which comment from him is being read) and disrupt or overturn election proceedings.

Everyone does it. FJB. Butter emails. Dijon mustard. Checkmate, libtards.

[Bret Ripley]

It seems weird that anyone needs to be reminded that he orchestrated a plan to ignore the results of an election. Literally. You may have seen something about it -- it was in all the papers for a while.

No, Bret. That was disinformation.

Oh, okay.

And it doesn’t matter anyway, because both sides do it.

Gosh, it almost sounds like democracy is at stake. Damn, there's just no escaping this TDS.

[Some Schmo]

I honestly had no idea so many Americans were retarded. I think there has to be too much lead in the American water supply for Americans to be this stupid. How many excuses for Trump are we going to endure before calling a spade a spade?

[Hound of Heaven]

To answer the OP in the same manner as presented:

The OP presents a sweeping and deeply flawed argument, both in its assumptions and in its conclusions, about the causes of Democratic electoral struggles and the appeal of Donald Trump. It relies heavily on generalizations, selective reasoning, and ideological bias rather than evidence-based analysis. Here’s a detailed rebuttal that systematically addresses and challenges the core claims made:

1. Misrepresentation of Democratic Electoral History

The claim that Democrats have failed to “overcome Trump in nearly every endeavor over the past decade” is inaccurate. In fact, the Democratic Party has had significant electoral successes during this period:
• 2020 Presidential Election: Joe Biden defeated Donald Trump decisively, both in the popular vote (by over 7 million votes) and in the Electoral College (306 to 232).
• Midterm Elections: In 2018, Democrats gained 41 House seats, flipping control of the House of Representatives—a clear repudiation of Trump-era policies.
• Senate Control: Democrats regained control of the Senate in 2020 (and held it in 2022), defying historical midterm trends.
• State and Local Victories: Democrats have made gains in gubernatorial and state legislature races in numerous battleground states.

To suggest that the Democratic Party has collapsed due to progressive overreach is a gross oversimplification. U.S. politics is highly cyclical, and both parties experience swings in power due to a wide variety of factors, including economic trends, cultural shifts, and unforeseen events (e.g., the COVID-19 pandemic).

2. Exaggerated Influence of Fear in Democratic Strategy

The author asserts that the Democratic Party has relied almost exclusively on fear to persuade voters. This is a mischaracterization:
• Policy Focus: Democratic campaigns have focused heavily on health care (e.g., protection of the Affordable Care Act), economic equality, reproductive rights, climate change, and civil rights—not solely on fear, but on positive visions for the future.
• Unity Messaging: Joe Biden’s 2020 campaign was based around the themes of unity, compassion, and a “battle for the soul of the nation,” which explicitly rejected divisiveness and fear-mongering.
• Use of Fear in Politics: Fear is not unique to the Democratic Party. Trump’s 2016 and 2020 campaigns prominently featured fear of immigrants, crime, socialism, and cultural change. Claiming Democrats rely more heavily on fear than Republicans is either dishonest or deeply uninformed.

Fear is a tool used in all political messaging—by both parties—to underscore urgency. The difference is in how it is contextualized: Democrats often use it to warn about threats to democracy, healthcare, or the environment; Republicans use it to stoke anxieties about immigration, crime, and “wokeness.” Neither side owns the patent on fear.

3. Overstatement of “Cancel Culture” and Its Political Relevance

The author introduces a vague and alarmist narrative about “cancel culture,” portraying it as a coordinated Democratic strategy for enforcing ideological conformity. This is misleading:
• What is “Cancel Culture”? It is a loosely defined term that has been weaponized in political discourse to describe everything from public accountability to social media backlash. It is not, nor has it ever been, a formal political strategy of the Democratic Party.
• False Equivalence: While social media outrage can come from any side of the political spectrum, the GOP also engages in forms of cancel culture—banning books, censoring school curricula, and punishing dissent within its own ranks (e.g., the censure of Liz Cheney).
• Lack of Evidence: There is no evidence that “cancel culture” is why Democrats have lost elections, and such a claim substitutes culture war rhetoric for substantive political analysis.

4. Mischaracterization of Trump’s Motives and Persona

The notion that Trump “did not aspire to the presidency” and was merely a selfless patriot is contradicted by his decades of self-promotion, personal ambition, and public statements:
• Longstanding Political Interest: Trump publicly flirted with presidential runs in 1988, 2000, 2004, and 2012.
• Self-Enrichment: As president, he violated norms regarding personal enrichment, refused to divest from his business empire, and funneled taxpayer money into Trump-owned properties.
• Rhetorical Style: His public persona is not marked by humility or compassion, but by bombast, cruelty, and division. His rallies are often filled with personal attacks, misinformation, and mockery—not moral instruction or healing rhetoric.

To portray him as someone employing a “balanced blend of fear and compassion” is revisionist at best and disingenuous at worst.

5. Misguided Comparison Between Trump and Democratic Politicians

The author praises Trump’s charisma, humor, and “dance moves” as somehow central to his political success. While presentation matters in politics, the underlying assertion—that Democrats fail because they do not smile and dance enough—is unserious:
• Style vs. Substance: The implication that Democrats lose elections because they are not fun or performative enough underestimates the electorate’s intelligence. Voters care about healthcare, jobs, security, education—not how well a politician dances on stage.
• Democratic Figures with Charisma: Barack Obama was one of the most charismatic politicians in modern history, and he won two terms with wide coalitions. Other Democrats, such as Stacey Abrams, Beto O’Rourke, and Gretchen Whitmer, have demonstrated strong public engagement and personal appeal.

Charisma helps, but it is no substitute for policy clarity, competence, and integrity.

6. The False Narrative of Democrats as “Bullies”

The claim that Democrats appear as “schoolyard bullies” is an inversion of reality. Trump’s political brand has been explicitly based on insults, aggression, and ridicule. From mocking a disabled reporter, to calling political opponents derogatory nicknames, to encouraging chants like “lock her up,” Trump’s style is far more bullying than persuasive.

Furthermore, framing the Democratic Party as “refusing to acknowledge defeat” ignores that:
• Trump refused to concede the 2020 election.
• He incited an insurrection at the Capitol to overturn certified results.
• Most Democrats, by contrast, have accepted electoral outcomes even when unfavorable, and have not promoted conspiracy theories about election fraud.

7. Conclusion: Persuasion Isn’t Solely About Optics—It’s About Trust and Policy

The idea that Democrats just need to “smile more” or use fear more artfully misunderstands the political landscape. What voters want is leadership that understands their struggles, proposes real solutions, and behaves with decency.

Trump’s appeal to a segment of the electorate is real—but his record is marred by incompetence, divisiveness, and corruption. The task for Democrats is not to mimic his tactics, but to restore trust through consistency, ethical leadership, and a clear policy agenda.

Rather than buying into mythologies about Trump as a populist savior or Democrats as fearmongering tyrants, political observers should commit to good-faith, fact-based analysis. The health of American democracy depends on it.

; )

Impressive! It seems like you have everything under control, Canpakes! I have to acknowledge that you are right, and I was mistaken.

Could you explain why Trump and the Republicans succeeded in gaining control of the White House, Senate, Congress, and the Supreme Court? Given your expertise and insights on winning strategies, could you explain why 33% of young women voted for Trump in 2020 and that number increased to 41% in 2024?

Given your insights and understanding of success, could you explain why 41% of young men voted for Trump in 2020, and why that number increased to 55% in 2024?

Since you have it all figured out and understand how to win, can you explain why in 2020, Biden received 59% of the Latino male vote compared to Trump's 36%, and in 2024, Trump received 54% of the Latino male vote compared to Biden's 44%?

Given your expertise in this area, could you explain why Biden secured the Hispanic women's vote by a 40-point margin in 2020, while Harris only achieved a 21-point lead in 2024?

It's notable that Trump managed to gain 19 points from the Democrats among Hispanic women in just four years.

Since you have it all figured out and understand how to win, can you tell me why in 2020 Biden received 90% of the black vote but in 2024 Harris only received 80% of the black vote.

Given your understanding of the situation, could you explain why Biden garnered 68% of the Asian vote in 2020, while Harris only achieved 60% in 2024?

Given your understanding of the situation, could you explain why in 2020, 72% of Indian Americans supported Biden, while in 2024, only 65% backed Kamala?

Do you see what I just accomplished here, Canpakes! I presented you with the clear and factual data explaining why Trump emerged victorious! While I appreciate your effort in crafting a post, I must express that it ultimately lacks value.

In fact, it seems to serve primarily as a means for your fellow progressives to find a brief escape from reality. Indeed, the more individuals with progressive views contribute to this board, the clearer it becomes that Spirit Paradise has transformed into a space for those who align with such perspectives to express their grievances about those who oppose their Marxist beliefs.

Actually, I plan to reach out to Shades privately and request that he rename Spirit Paradise to The Progressive/Marxist Therapy Couch! Your post serves only to boost the egos of individuals like Gunnar, Bishop Schmo, Molok, and Kishkumen. It fails to address how the Democratic Party can achieve success in 2026 or 2028.

Thank you for writing posts like this, they help me understand the reasons behind the significant hatred from the progressives here in Spirit Paradise. Essentially, posters such as myself, Ajax18, and Ceeboo, when we share our thoughts here in Spirit Paradise, I have come to realize why you progressives feel so agitated and why it seems to affect you on a personal level. You progressives seem less interested in dialogue and more focused on seeking validation from your fellow progressives that progressivism is the sole path worth pursuing. When someone has the audacity to present a differing opinion, the progressives collectively shift into attack mode, striving to push the non-progressive off the therapy couch.

Willing to offer up an opinion on how Democrats beat the Republicans in 2026 and 2028?

Who's the board's therapist and can I pay them through Venmo?

[Hound of Heaven]

Alright, I might be running on a bit of a snail's pace here, because it took me a hot minute to wrap my head around what I actually figured out in the post above!!

So, I just realized that Spirit Paradise is basically a giant therapy couch for progressives. Is that why half the folks posting here pretend to be Doctors? That's definitely the ticket! It's as if a disco ball just dropped in my brain!

I'm beginning to see that Spirit Paradise is like a cozy retreat for ex-Mormons who ditched the Mormon cult only to find themselves in the progressive cult, all in search of some therapy to ease the aches of their cult adventures!

So, when I share my thoughts and get bombarded with negativity, it’s like I’ve just crashed a therapy session that was supposed to be all about healing and hugs!

It's hard to wrap my head around how long it took me to realize why the progressives around here are so fired up!