You're telling me this and you're wrong. You haven't provided anything to back up your claims either. Tossing out American Exceptionalism, telling me that other countries exist, and strawmanning isn't really convincing.PhoneLobster wrote:They do however need to have a voter base at all.MGuy wrote:What I'm getting at is that the things you're describing aren't real costs. Dems don't need to expand their voter base.
You asserting that in one generation they will have no voters after they've doubled down on their current tactics and captured more votes than they ever have is a hard sell. Telling me you hope accelerationists are right when they haven't been isn't convincing. Assuming that I'm saying America 'can never change' instead of asking me if I actually believe that or if I believe that there is a way America can change suggests to me that you are prepared to argue as if I believe that, so much so that you don't need me to indicate that I actually do. You make broad appeals to history without demonstrating how past historical events actually line up with the current situation in a way that makes them applicable.
It's all really a bad look from my perspective. I actually talk to American voters and non voters when I go to the local meetings. I actually am heavily invested in what the political landscape here is and not so much with the goings on in Australia. That much is true. But I also don't try to tell an Australian and insist that my perspective on their politics is somehow more salient and I definitely wouldn't try to do so unless I'm prepared to give a really good argument for why that is so.